023-08 - Resolution - Approving and Certifying the Comp Parks PlanRESOLUTION NO. 023-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD,
WASHINGTON APPROVING AND CERTIFYING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PARKS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
PORT ORCHARD.
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has adopted a Comprehensive
Parks Plan and capital improvement plan to implement the goals and objectives of the
Parks and Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has actively sought citizen input,
including the use of a public survey, to improve the municipal parks and to develop future
programs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has from time to time revised the
Comprehensive Parks Plan in order to address the changing needs of the community ; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the City Council held a public hearing to
receive additional public input regarding proposed changes to the Comprehensive Parks
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Parks Plan, including revisions to the capital improvement plan, are
consistent with the Parks and Opens Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE THE FOLLOWING:
THAT: The City of Port Orchard approves and certifies the
Comprehensive Parks Plan for the City of Port Orchard, as amended, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the
Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 2~y of April 2008.
//'
ATTEST:
Michelle Merlino, City Clerk
., /
JNOR
/
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
2008 COMPREHENSIVE
PARKS PLAN
Department of Public Works
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 2
COMPREHENSIVE PARKS PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VISION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 3
DESCRIPTION OF PORT ORCHARD .......................................................................................... 9
TABLE 1 – POPULATION ............................................................................................... 10
PLANNING AREA ....................................................................................................................... 11
MAP 1 – CITY OF PORT ORCHARD ............................................................................ 12
MAP 2 – CITY LIMITS ................................................................................................... 13
MAP 3 – PLANNING AREAS .............................................................................14
EXISTING RECREATIONAL AREAS AND FACILITIES ........................................................ 15
VAN ZEE PARK .............................................................................................................. 16
CENTRAL PARK ............................................................................................................ 17
GIVEN’S FIELD .............................................................................................................. 18
LUNDBERG PARK ......................................................................................................... 19
PAUL POWERS, JR., PARK ........................................................................................... 19
PORT ORCHARD BOAT RAMP .................................................................................... 20
DeKALB STREET PEDESTRIAN PIER ........................................................................ 21
SEATTLE AVENUE PROPERTY ............................................................................. 22
WESTBAY LEASE AREA .............................................................................................. 22
NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARKS ...................................................................... 23
EXISTING PARKS SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 24
MAP 4 – PARK LOCATIONS ......................................................................................... 27
PRIVATE PLAY AREAS ............................................................................................................. 28
OTHER AGENCY FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 29
SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT #402 ......................................................29
SOUTH KITSAP PARK ........................................................................................................... 29
KITSAP COUNTY PARKS ................................................................................................. 30
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................... 31
HISTORICAL SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................. 32
DEMANDS/NEEDS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 35
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF RECREATIONAL STANDARDS ...................................... 36
TABLE 3: TOTAL PARK AREA REQUIREMENTS ............................................ 39
TABLE 4: COMMUNITY PARK AREA REQUIREMENTS ........................................ 40
TABLE 5: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 41
ACTION PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 42
ENCLOSURES .............................................................................................................................. 44
ENCLOSURE 1 – TOTAL ACREAGE BY ZONE ......................................................... 45
ENCLOSURE 2 – CENSUS DATA ................................................................................. 46
APPENDIX 1 - WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROJECT
APPENDIX 2 - URBAN WATERFRONT WALKWAY
APPENDIX 3 - STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
APPENDIX 4 - IAC FORMS AND CITY RESOLUTION
APPENDIX 5 - PARKS SURVEY-OCTOBER 2006 SUMMARY SHEET & PUBLIC COMMENT
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 3
VISION
Port Orchard is a community which provides a full range of open space and biodiversity by
protecting native wildlife habitat, restoring and preserving natural systems, enjoying majestic
marine and mountain views, and ensuring new development enhances the natural environment.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Port Orchard has maintained a consistent set of goals and objectives in its endeavor
to provide recreational opportunities to the community. In order for the park system to
complement the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the current goals and objectives of the
Parks and Open Space Element are adopted.
The overall goal of the Comprehensive Parks Plan is as follows:
To develop and maintain adequate and convenient Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
areas and facilities for all age groups and to better serve both the existing and future
population of Port Orchard and surrounding areas. This goal can be achieved by several
objectives.
1. Increase public access to the marine shoreline by using municipal authority to
encourage better public access to the shoreline.
2. Preserve open space considered cultural and scenic in value by:
a. enhancing and expanding park facilities
b. discouraging obstructions of scenic views
3. Increase the size and number of parks and open spaces by:
a. establishing partnerships with other agencies to jointly utilize public facilities
b. promoting through public and private investments, the acquisition of open
space facilities and assuring proper maintenance thereof
c. providing for public input when developing plans for public parks
d. providing for a mixture of active and passive open spaces within residential
and
commercial areas with consideration of nearby public facilities
e. providing input when others develop plans for public parks within Port
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 4
Orchard's Urban Growth Boundary
The newly stated comprehensive goals and objectives, which are restated for reference, are
consistent with those of the previous Comprehensive Parks Plan,
(1) The development and maintenance of open space and
recreational facilities, where possible, in the established areas of the City.
(2) The preservation of sufficient open space to serve the existing and future
population of the City, including the pass through as well as the permanent
population.
(3) The development of the passive recreational potential of Blackjack Creek
watershed, the
shoreline, and adjacent areas in balance with residential, commercial, and other
uses.
(4) Shaping and seeking the right balance for urban development through the use of
open
space, thereby strengthening the beauty, identity, and aesthetic qualities of the
City and surrounding areas.
(5) Development of shoreline parks, including walking and biking trails, which
would
link the shopping center to the shoreline. Proposed walking and biking trails
would also be designed to serve residential areas.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 5
As South Kitsap County and Port Orchard continue to grow, the importance of the limited
recreational resources continues to increase. Greater population pressures demand well-defined
goals and priorities. In order to achieve these comprehensive goals and objectives, the concise
and realistic objectives must be specified:
GOAL: To provide open space or natural landscaping throughout the City limits.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Zoning ordinances shall identify and preserve open space areas.
2. Landscaping, such as trees and shrubbery, should be included in the commercial areas of the
City.
3. Vacant municipal land not required for municipal services shall be maintained to provide a
pleasing natural condition.
GOAL: Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities should be conveniently located
throughout the City.
OBJECTIVES:
1. The Active Club should continue to be maintained and improved.
2. A performing arts center should be encouraged.
3. All facilities should accommodate the handicapped and the elderly.
4. The City should maximize the use of State and Federal grants for future improvements
whenever possible.
5. The City should coordinate with other governmental entities and civic organizations to
provide new facilities to the public.
6. The City should encourage commercial enterprises to establish facilities which are
harmonious with the community vision and goals.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 6
GOAL: Athletic endeavors and organized sports should be encouraged throughout the
community.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Athletic fields should be supplemented with picnic and playground facilities to encourage
family participation.
2. Any vacant public land large enough for an athletic field should be used for this purpose.
3. Private sports programs should be encouraged.
4. A trail system should be established along the shoreline.
5. Coordination with sports councils and committees would be beneficial.
6. Plan for a skate park in the South Kitsap area.
GOAL: The waterfront should be preserved and protected to enhance public use.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Boat docks and marinas should be encouraged; however, these activities are not to be
construed as the sole resource of the waterfront.
2. Public access to the water is required and should be provided for new municipal and
commercial development.
3. Viewing decks and similar pedestrian-oriented structures are needed and should be
constructed in the urban waterfront area.
4. A waterfront bicycle and walking path should be constructed.
5. Beach access should be identified and developed. This should be integrated with waterfront
trail system.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 7
GOAL: To ensure maximum access to the marine shoreline.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Public access should be considered as a condition of a Shoreline Development Permit (SDP).
2. Joint public access on adjacent property should be encouraged.
3. Over water construction should be disallowed.
GOAL: To provide for a mixture of active and passive open space within residential and
commercial developments and preserve open space considered cultural and scenic in value.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Buffers and open space should be a required design element in new developments.
2. Steep slopes and sensitive areas should be protected with critical area restrictions.
GOAL: To promote the acquisition and maintenance of open space through public and private
investment.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Countywide open space acquisition should be encouraged.
2. Maintenance of City-owned open space should take precedence over acquisition of new City
parks, unless the proposed park serves a specific need.
GOAL: To enhance and expand existing park facilities.
OBJECTIVE:
Improvements in parks should be done annually.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 8
GOAL: To preserve and enhance environmentally sensitive open space.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Identify environmentally sensitive open space.
2. Protect environmentally sensitive open space by limiting public intrusion.
3. Preserve sensitive areas by implementing legal instruments to dedicate them for this purpose.
GOAL: To place and construct community entry monuments on arterial city entrances.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Maintain and landscape existing Gateway areas.
2. Prepare Gateway designs and seek public/private funding.
3. Set-up and preserve historical monuments at key points with in the City.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 9
DESCRIPTION OF PORT ORCHARD
Port Orchard has a good transportation system conducive to commuting by both automobile and
ferry. It is in an area of affordable land values and is centrally located between major
metropolitan areas. Although Port Orchard has the potential to evolve into a bedroom
community for Seattle-Tacoma, it is still a community where most people live and work in the
Bremerton/Port Orchard area.
Port Orchard is a small city of about 8,300 citizens and a community of 60,000. Enclosure One
shows the total acreage by land use zone to illustrate the residential nature of the community. As
seen in Map 1, the City is adjacent to a major urban area. This urban area is continuing to grow
while the City is defined by its corporate limits. These unofficial urban areas are not unique to
this region. Urbanization of the unincorporated county area is common in the Puget Sound
region. With the tax base of a small community, the City finds itself providing recreational
services and parks to the larger surrounding population. With the spirit of the Growth
Management Act, the City can continue to develop its park facilities to complement rather than
compete with the facilities operated by other agencies. In order to get more efficient resource
utilization the individual public park and recreational providers will need to better coordinate
their programs to reduce unnecessary duplication.
A review of Enclosure Two and Table 1 indicates that the City will continue to grow while its
surrounding area experiences an even greater rate of growth. This projection assumes that the
City's corporate limits will significantly grow through annexation. The growth differential does
graphically illustrate the pressure of the adjacent developments that will continue to make
demands on the City. Although Kitsap County now has a valid comprehensive land use plan and
established urban growth areas, there are still concerns on how to accommodate the future
populations. However, as stated in the goals and objectives, the City shall cooperate with
adjacent agencies to better utilize public facilities throughout the county.
A review of the Census data from 2000 shows that the City of Port Orchard is a family-oriented
community. It is a stable community with 35% of the residents living in their same home for
more than five years.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 10
YEAR KITSAP
COUNTY
PORT
ORCHARD
1970 101,732 3,904
1980 147,152 4,787
1990 189,731 4,984
1991 196,500 5,109
1992 205,600 5,272
1993 210,947 5,610
1994 213,200 5,700
1995 220,600 6,240
1996 224,700 6,610
1997 229,700 6,965
1998 229,000 6,945
1999 229,700 7,255
2000 234,510 7,270
2001 239,319 7,810
2002 244,129 7,900
2003 248,938 7,910
2004 253,748 8,060
2005 258,558 8,250
2006 263,267 8,310
2010 282,605 9,187
2020 12,000
TABLE 1: POPULATION
The population estimate used is table 1 for the years after 2010 is based on an annual growth
factor of 3.4%. The factor of 3.4% is the average annual growth factor of Port Orchard since
2000. During the period 2010 to 2020, it is assumed that the rate of growth in the City will grow
to 2.5% due to future annexations. The rate of growth is based on the assumption that the city
limits will significantly expand. The unincorporated area may experience more than a 2.5%
growth rate during that period.
Certain statistics prove interesting in reviewing the needs of Port Orchard. Enclosure Two is a
detailed listing of some 1980 and 1990 Census data for tracts 922, 923, 924, and 925. The City
is located in all or part of these tracts. Table 1 shows the population trends for the previous
years and projected population figures for 2001 to 2010. It is interesting to note that after the
decline in City population between 1986 and 1988, the population has resumed a steady
increase along with the County. For the year 2000, the Office of Financial Management lowered
its housing density factor, which then lowered the population estimates. In comparison, the
building trends in the City indicated that more than 25 people had moved into the city limits in
the year 2000. The previous steady growth is expected to resume in the study period.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 11
PLANNING AREA
As seen by Map 1, the City of Port Orchard is in a most enviable location for economic growth
and population expansion. However, to preserve its residential character, the City must carefully
balance the needs of the neighborhood with those of commercial development.
Port Orchard is conveniently located near the major urban areas of Puget Sound. Seattle is only
60 minutes away by ferry. Bellevue, Kent and other major suburbs are also 60 minutes away by
ferry. Tacoma and Port Orchard are connected by a 30-minute automobile drive along a four-
lane freeway. Since the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge was completed, the access to the
Tacoma metropolitan area has become even easier. Furthermore, Port Orchard is also centrally
located between the population expansion areas of Kitsap and Pierce counties.
The planning area for this document will be limited to the corporate boundaries. When an area is
annexed into the City and the annexation area encompasses a park facility, that facility operation
and ownership will not be affected by the annexation.
For analysis purposes only, the City is divided into six quadrants. Community parks are usually
destinations, and people will travel there by car or public transit for the purpose of using the
large park. Examples of the community parks are Van Zee Park, the South Kitsap Park and the
Veterans Memorial Park. However, the community parks do not serve any specific
neighborhood. Therefore, planning quadrants are identified based on physical obstacles that
limit foot traffic. For instance, Tremont Street is considered an obstacle due to the traffic
volume it experiences. The six planning areas for the City are shown on Map 3 and are as
follows:
AREA NORTH
BOUNDARY
EAST
BOUNDARY
SOUTH
BOUNDARY
WEST
BOUNDARY
1 SINCLAIR
INLET
PORT ORCH.
BOULEVARD
TREMONT ST SR 16
2 SINCLAIR
INLET
BLACKJACK
CREEK
TREMONT ST PORT ORCH.
BOULEVARD
3 TREMONT ST POTTERY AVE SR 16 SR 16
4 TREMONT ST SIDNEY AVE SR 16 POTTERY AVE
5 SINCLAIR
INLET
HORSTMAN
RD
MILE HILL
DRIVE
BLACKJACK
CREEK
6 LUND AVE BLACKJACK
CREEK
SR 16 SIDNEY AVE
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 12
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 13
\:) D
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 14
MAP 3: PLANNING AREAS
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 15
EXISTING RECREATIONAL AREAS
AND FACILITIES
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 16
EXISTING RECREATIONAL AREAS AND FACILITIES
The City of Port Orchard currently has a municipal parks system which provides certain
recreational opportunities to the public. The existing system is supplemented by the schools of
the South Kitsap School District, Kitsap County Parks Department, and the South Kitsap Parks
District.
VAN ZEE PARK:
Area: 8.4 Acres
Van Zee Park is an accomplishment of the 1976 Comprehensive Parks Plan. Since 1979, this
park has been consistently improving and expanding through diligent application of a multi-year
plan. With prudent expenditures of the now-defunct Federal Revenue Sharing funds and
considerable volunteer effort and JTPA labor, the City completed the park in 1983. As a result,
Van Zee Park has been transformed from a vacant field to a recreational facility containing
picnic areas, trails, shelters, two baseball diamonds, a playground, a sports field, and a lighted
double tennis court. Also provided in this park are a restroom and a horseshoe court. The top of
the existing concrete water reservoir has been fenced to allow a safe place for children to ride
bicycles and play basketball. The park is oriented towards the family and unorganized sports.
During the last planning period, the playground equipment was replaced. All facilities in Van
Zee Park are free to the public.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 17
CENTRAL PARK:
Area: 1.4 Acres
Central Park is located in the residential area of Port Orchard and contains three picnic tables, a
playground, sports field, restroom, and full basketball court. As with other City parks, there is a
complete underground sprinkler system to minimize maintenance expenses. Renovation of the
basketball court will be required in the near future. This park is primarily for families and young
children. During the last planning period, a new restroom was constructed, and the playground
was improved. All facilities in Central Park are free to the public.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 18
GIVENS FIELD:
Area: 8.3 Acres
Givens Field is primarily an athletic facility for organized teams. Two baseball diamonds are on
this site and are leased to South Kitsap Western Little League and the Babe Ruth League. The
public, which is not affiliated with the various organized teams, does not use these athletic
resources without specific approval from the lessee.
Givens Field also has facilities dedicated for general public use. These facilities include a
lighted double tennis court, lighted horseshoe courts, restrooms, picnic area, and playground. On
site is the Active Club which is a municipal building consisting of three different-sized meeting
rooms, bathrooms, kitchen, storage areas, and daylight basement. Any activity or organization
may schedule with the City Clerk’s office the use of a meeting room and the facility. Except for
the baseball diamonds, the facilities of Givens Park are free to the public.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 19
LUNDBERG PARK:
Lundberg Park was previously a five-acre RV campground for self-contained recreational
vehicles. The property was developed in such a manner to minimize its impact on the forest and
the surrounding area. The park had been closed to the public since 2001
PAUL POWERS, JR., PARK
Area: 2.5 Acres
The playfield adjacent to Fire Station #2 provides an area for the various soccer teams and T-ball
teams to practice. The field is not regulation size for soccer, and there are no facilities for public
use at this site. In the northeast corner of the field, there is a playground which was renovated in
1993. The play area consists of a big toy-type piece of equipment, swings, teeter totters, and a
basketball court.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 20
PORT ORCHARD BOAT RAMP:
Port Orchard has one municipal boat ramp to allow public access to Sinclair Inlet. In the year
2000, the Port of Bremerton expanded the parking and constructed a public restroom. There are
now 21 parking stalls for trucks with trailers and a boat assemble area to prepare for launching.
The ramp consists of 155 feet of concrete floats and two concrete ramps. The hinges for the
concrete floats were last replaced in 1997. There is no charge for use of this ramp. This facility
is extremely popular for both commercial and the public for marine activities. The City is
looking for outside funding opportunities to renovate this ramp in the near future.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 21
DeKALB STREET PEDESTRIAN PIER:
To enhance public access to the water, the City has constructed the DeKalb Pedestrian Pier. The
facility has limited parking and extends in the DeKalb Waterway. The first 169 feet of the
structure is a timber pier with two picnic tables. In 1988 this structure had 161 feet of wood
floats and a pedestrian ramp. Since 1988 this structure has been extended with an additional 367
feet of wood floats totaling 528 feet. The structure is used for sightseeing and fishing. During
the last planning period, the wood floats were replaced with new floats that are more “fish
friendly.” There is no charge for the use of this structure.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 22
SEATTLE AVENUE PROPERTY
Two tax parcels were donated to the City by Mrs. Gerry Bruckart. These tax parcels, located at
the corner of Division Street and Seattle Avenue, are undeveloped and extend into the wooded
ravine of Blackjack Creek. There are no plans for the development of the lots at this time.
However, the concept for the property is to construct a deck from street level into the wooded
area. Due to the steep terrain, this deck would allow access to the wooded area of Blackjack
Creek ravine without encroaching upon the water. It would be a shady park area that would be
extremely popular in the summer months.
The property was deeded with the restriction that only a structure could be constructed on it for
the purpose of public observation of the Blackjack ravine and its surrounding environs to
enhance the appreciation of the environment. The structure would be dedicated to the Sprague-
Howe family.
WESTBAY LEASE AREA
The City has previously leased the shorelands of Black jack Creek to the Westbay Shopping
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 23
Center. As the need for public access increases, the City is reconsidering this policy. This land
provides a strip of property 45 feet by 300 feet along the east edge of Blackjack Creek where it
enters Sinclair Inlet. The future use of this land could include an educational area for the
protection of the salmon and a small waterfront park.
NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARKS
As new subdivisions are approved, the City will often require a pocket park to be included in the
plat. These small parks are typically the size of a residential lot and can contain a big toy, swing,
or other piece of playground equipment. Some parks are owned and maintained by the
Homeowners Association. Others are City parks. City parks are in Windfall Place and Eagle
Crest subdivisions.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 24
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
EXISTING PARKS SUMMARY
1. Van Zee Park Location: 300 Tremont Street
• 8.4 Acres
• Picnic Tables
• Trails
• 2 Baseball Diamonds
• 2 Tennis Courts with lights
• Playground
• Sports Field
• Restrooms
• Disc Golf Course
• Basketball Court
2. Central Park Location: 915 Dwight Street
• 1.4 Acres
• Playground
• Sports Field
• Restrooms
• Basketball Court
• Picnic Tables
3. Givens Field Location: 1025 Tacoma Avenue
• 8.3 Acres
• 2 Tennis Courts with lights
• Restrooms
• Picnic Area
• Playground
• Meeting Rooms
• Bathrooms
• Kitchen
• Storage
• 2 Baseball Diamonds (Leased to Leagues)
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 25
The Active Club is the City’s community building for organizations such as TOPS, the Kitsap
Woodcarvers, and Alcoholic Anonymous.
4. Lundberg Park (Closed) Location: 2676 Harold Avenue
• 5.0 Acres
• 12 camping sites with picnic tables
• Path to creek
5. Paul Powers, Jr., Park Location: 2035 Sidney Avenue
• 2.5 Acres
• Playground
• Sports Field
• Basketball Court
6. Boat Ramp Location: 535 Bay Street
• 155 Feet of floats
• 2 Ramps
• Public restroom
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 26
7. DeKalb Pier Location: 475 Bay Street
• 169 Feet of pier
• 359 Feet of floats
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 27
Legend: CP Central Playfield GP Givens Park LL LongLake PP Paul Powers Jr. Park RV RVPark SK South Kitsap Park VM Veteran's Memorial Park WF Windfall Place Pocket Park MAP 4: PARK LOCATIONS
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 28
PRIVATE PLAY AREAS
Recreational Inventory
1. Orchard Pt. Apartments pool spa
recreation room
2 tanning rooms
exercise room
T.V. room
Big toy & bench
2. Cedar Heights Apartments 1 playground with a jungle jim
which includes a slide, hang bar,
and a bench
3. Heritage Apartments 1 basketball hoop
1 jungle jim which includes a slide,
sliding pole, and bars
4. Orchard on the Green Apartments 1 indoor pool
saunas
jacuzzi
billiards room
exercise room
2 playgrounds which contain a jungle jim
containing a slide and swings
1 tennis court
5. Fourplex at 1436 Dwight St. 1 playground
consisting of a jungle jim
containing a slide and two swings
1. Arbor Terrace Apartments pool
2 big toys with slides
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 29
OTHER AGENCY FACILITIES
SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT #402
To complement the municipal facilities, there are two schools within the city limits. In the South
part of the City, the Cedar Heights Junior High School is located. The Junior High has a
gymnasium, sports field, track, football field, and baseball diamond. However, use of these
resources is generally limited to students. The South Kitsap High School is in the eastern half of
the city. The High School's facilities are modern and complete. These facilities consist of a
gymnasium, sports field, track, football field, baseball diamond, soccer field, lighted tennis
courts, and an Olympic size indoor swimming pool. The public has access to the tennis courts
and swimming pool.
SOUTH KITSAP PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT
The South Kitsap Parks and Recreation District came into existence to serve the specific needs
of South Kitsap. Its primary asset is the 200 acres of wooded property at the corner of Lund
Avenue and Jackson Road, which it acquired from the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources. Through diligence and hard work, the District has been able to develop a baseball
diamond and a fully equipped playground on this site.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 30
KITSAP COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT
At a site located in the Retsil neighborhood at the corner of Olney Avenue, Kitsap County has
developed the Veteran's Memorial Park. Facilities within this park include a softball diamond,
two soccer fields, and a playground.
Map 4 depicts the location of the facilities.
Long Lake in South Kitsap
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 31
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The secret of a successful plan is to be realistic and to assure the plan will define
accomplishments that satisfy public needs. Without public input and involvement, the demands
of the citizens cannot be well established. Public opinion concerning recreation and facilities has
been sought routinely over the years.
Combined with historical data, the City will usually determine community opinions through
public hearings and telephone surveys. In this manner, a clear picture of the recreational needs
of the citizens of Port Orchard is determined.
In December 1975, one thousand surveys were mailed to the residents of Port Orchard in order to
define their demands for parks and recreation. Of these thousand mailings, only two hundred or
20% of the surveys were returned.
In March 1983, a telephone survey of the residents was accomplished. One hundred sixty
residents were randomly selected from the telephone book. Of these 160, 78 people were
contacted and participated.
In November 1982, the City, in conjunction with the Shorelines Division of the Department of
Ecology, used Coastal Zone Management funds to study the urban waterfront. The study
included a task force of local citizens and was able to be expanded to study the recreational
needs of the urban waterfront. The task force participation was an average: 15 people
representing organizations such as the Downtown Merchants Association, the real estate
community, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the elderly, the sports community, and concerned
citizens. Five task force meetings were held with the architectural/planning consultant,
Kasprisin-Pettinari Design. Also one all day workshop was held in downtown Port Orchard in
which 60 people visited to provide valuable ideas and public perceptions.
In August 1987, the City conducted a telephone survey of its residents. The survey was
completed during normal working hours and the calls were focused on actual City residents.
Ninety five people responded to the telephone questionnaire.
In 1991, the City conducted a survey by sending out 200 survey forms to randomly selected
households. Seventy-four questionnaires were returned which makes up a 37% return rate.
In 1996, a survey was mailed in the quarterly newsletter. Of the 2,000 mailed to the residents,
92 were returned. This was a 5% return rate.
In 1998, approximately 2,500 surveys were mailed in the quarterly newsletter, which goes to
every house and apartment in the City. Although the responding surveys would be eligible for a
$50 gift certificate, only 135 surveys were returned. This was a 5% return rate.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 32
The following is a comparison of the 1979, 1983, and 1987 surveys. The survey conducted in
1991 was revised so results reflect different responses. A summary of public input from the
waterfront revitalization study is included in the Plan.
HISTORICAL SURVEY RESULTS
EXTENT OF NEED
(Percent of Responses)
STRONG MODERATE NONE
1975 1987 1996 1975 1987 1996 1975 1987 1996 2006
CHILDREN 52 37 32 25 48 39 5 13 11 41
TEENAGER
S
70 33 55 14 48 21 3 17 7 31
ADULTS 40 26 18 37 48 37 8 24 27 106
SR. CITS. 48 45 17 32 42 40 4 11 17
PERCENT OF POPULATION WANTING MORE
1975 1983 1989 1996 2006
TENNIS 51 36 39 18 10
VOLLEY BALL 43 88 43 27
INDOOR RECREATION 55 96 54 8 25
SOCCER 37 73 39 9 12
BASEBALL 38 41 42 17 11
BASKETBALL 39 56 43 25 8
PICNIC AREAS 54 92 54 40 25
BOATING 37 21 42 33
BICYCLE PATHS 65 98 55 54
TRAILS, HIKING, AND JOGGING 56 98 52 48 48
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 33
PUBLIC OPINION OF EXISTING PARK FACILITIES
(Percent of Responses)
1979 1982 1987 1996 1998 2006
EXCELLENT 9 6 41 15 24 15
FAIR 56 70 44 76 56 17
POOR 27 15 14 9 4 7
THE 1996 SURVEY REVEALED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
• Blackjack Creek should remain natural and not be developed as a park or trail.
• Walking, picnicking, and boating are popular family activities.
• Bicycle trails and pedestrian paths are high priorities for the citizens.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 34
THE 1998 SURVEY SHOWED THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES:
ACTIVITY NUMBER OF
RESPONSES
Construct Walking Paths 67
Replace Playground Equipment 45
Upgrade the Active Club 41
Construct New Park 26
Construct Exercise Stations 26
Upgrade the Tennis Courts 18
¾ The tone of the comments appeared to call for the City to maintain what it has instead of
expanding or constructing new facilities.
¾ 73 responses were against the City being involved in organized sports. 34 responses
were in favor of it.
¾ 49 responses were in favor of the City merging with the South Kitsap Parks and
Recreation District. 44 responses were against it. 42 did not respond.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 35
DEMANDS/NEEDS ANALYSIS
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 36
DEMANDS/NEEDS ANALYSIS
To be consistent with the previous planning efforts, the City will continue to prioritize its
citizen demands.
Certain recreational activities are in strong demand by the residents. These are the following:
1. Trails
a. Bicycle
b. Jogging
2. Picnic Areas
In 2006 the following were the recreational activities in strong demand:
1. Bicycle Paths
2. Trails, hiking, and jogging
3. Picnic areas
4. Boating facilities
In 2000, the emphasis was placed on more organized sports and community activities. The
City’s population shows that families want a safe place to exercise by walking or biking . parks
are still popular for day events and picnics. Boating remains a popular activity.
The 2000 Parks Plan emphasized maintaining what the City owns instead of expanding the
parks program. That philosophy was reflected in the annual improvements at the parks. However
the intensity of improvements needs to be increased in order for people to continue to enjoy the
parks.
In 1979, only 9% of the responses considered the park system to be excellent. In 1983, with
little change in spending priority, this percentage remained small. In 1987, 41% called the
system excellent and in 1991, 69% believe that City properties are well maintained. The last
survey was in 2006 and 17% of the respondents considered the parks to be Excellent. However,
18% considered them only Fair. Improved maintenance and better equipment would be needed
to rise above the mediocre rating of Fair.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 37
NEEDS:
Appendix 3 is the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines and Local
Agency Standards for Class III -B Cities which are accepted as reasonable standards. Table 2 is
a comparison of the standard to the existing conditions in 2000 and the 2014 needs as projected
from the census data.
The City has existing needs which are identified not only from the standard, but also from
public demand. These existing needs are as follows:
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL
ITEM REQUIRED 2008 REQUIRED 2014
Bicycle Paths 3.7 mi 4.6 mi (.5 mile/1,000 citizens)
Trails 11.2 mi 13.7 mi (1.5 mile/1000 citizens)
Neighborhood Park 1 1
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 38
QUANTITY
REQUIRED
2000
QUANTITY
ON HAND
2000
(7,488 pop.)
QUANTITY
REQUIRED
2008
(8,350 pop.)
CITY STANDARDS
*
Neighborhood Park
**
2 3 3
****
1-2 ac/1,000
1 park/3,500
Community Park
***
1 1 1 (2) 5-8 ac/1,000
1 park/ 8,000
Baseball Diamond 1 4 1 1/5,000
Softball Diamond 1 2 1 1/5,000
Soccer Field 1 0 (2) 1 1/10,000
Football Field 1 0 (1) 1 1/20,000
Tennis Court 4 4 (6) 3 1/2,000
Bicycle Path 3.7 mi 0 4.6 mi .5 mile/1,000
Basketball Court 1 3 2 1/5,000
Picnic Area 2.1 ac 2 ac 2.6 ac 1 ac/3,500
Boat Launch 2 2 3 1/3,000
Trails 11.2mi 0 13.7 mi 1.5 mi/1,000
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF RECREATIONAL STANDARDS
* The standards are derived from the recommended standards provided by the Inter-
Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation and those used by Kitsap County. () indicates
facility not owned by City but available to public.
** Neighborhood parks are defined as those which can serve a general neighborhood and are
in close proximity, walking distance, to a residential area. In the City, neighborhood
parks are Central Playfield, Givens Park, and Paul Powers, Jr. Park.
*** Community parks are defined as larger parks which can serve several neighborhoods
which would be 1 to 2 miles from it. The community park would be a destination and
would not necessarily be easily accessible by walking. Community parks would be Van
Zee Park, Veterans Memorial Park, and the South Kitsap Community Park.
**** The neighborhood parks are not located to allow each neighborhood to have its own park
within safe walking distance.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 39
TIME PERIOD POPULATION ACRES REQUIRED
@0.006 AC/CAP
ACRES
AVAILABLE
SURPLUS OR
(DEFICIENCY)
Current as of 2008 8,350 43.6 20.6 (23) Acres
6 year growth
2008-2014
9.7 0 (10) Acres
Subtotal
as of 2014
53.3 20.6 (33) Acres
Growth to 20th year 18.7 0 (19) Acres
Subtotal
as of 2034
72.0 20.6 (52) Acres
TABLE 3: TOTAL PARK AREA REQUIREMENTS
This table shows the needs for the total park area. It does not address the issue of isolated
neighborhoods which are in need of recreational facilities.
Although the numerical analysis indicates that the City is deficient in total park area, a goal of
the City is to increase joint utilization of public facilities. The City citizens also have the
County's 48 acre Veteran's Memorial Park and the Park District’s 200 acre park available to
them. These additional acres provide the community with adequate total park acreage through
the year 2014.
The population estimates have been developed before Kitsap County has completed its
buildable land inventory. Once this inventory has been completed and new population allocated
through the area, the jurisdictions will have more accurate population numbers. The estimates in
this study may be higher than normal. The actual future population increases will be constrained
by a lack of land within the urban growth areas.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 40
TIME PERIOD POPULATION ACRES REQUIRED
@6.5 AC/1000
ACRES
AVAILABLE
SURPLUS OR
(DEFICIENCY)
Current as of 2008 8,350 47.3 8.4 (39) Acres
6 year growth
2008-2014
10.6 0 (11) Acres
Subtotal
as of 2014
57.8 8.4 (50) Acres
Growth to 20th year 20.2 0 (20) Acres
Subtotal
as of 2034
78.0 8.4 (70) Acres
TABLE 4: COMMUNITY PARK AREA REQUIREMENTS
The County's Veteran's Memorial Park consists of 48 acres and the Park District has 200 acres.
This acreage compensates the shortage of City-owned parks.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 41
TIME PERIOD POPULATION ACRES REQUIRED
@1.5 AC/1000
ACRES
AVAILABLE
SURPLUS OR
(DEFICIENCY)
Current as of 2008 8,350 10.9 12.2 +1 Acres
6 year growth
2008-2014
2.4 0 (2.) Acres
Subtotal
as of 2002014
13.3 12.2 (1) Acres
Growth to 20th year 4.7 0 (5) Acres
Subtotal
as of 2034
18.0 12.2 (6) Acres
TABLE 5: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REQUIREMENTS
This table best reflects the issue of planning zones. Numerically, there is a surplus of acreage
for neighborhood parks. However, the definition of a neighborhood park is one which serves a
residential area, and one can walk safely to it. Central Playfield safely serves Zone 2, which is in
the older part of Port Orchard. However, Zone 1 does not have a park and there is no
neighborhood park close enough for a child to walk to safely. Furthermore, as the neighborhood
around Fireweed Road grows, a park will be needed for those residents.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 42
ACTION PROGRAM
The Capital Improvement Plan is the planning document that will allow the City to budget its
resources to allow it to meet the goals and objectives for municipal parks.
The emphasis of the next six years for municipal parks is to maintain what currently exists while
slowly expanding to meet future needs. Significant improvements caused by expanding
population should be funded as land use actions allow higher population densities. Maintenance
of existing facilities would be funded by annual budget expenditures.
A shortage of bicycle paths and trails exists within the City of Port Orchard. Opportunities
should be sought to develop trails within large park areas. However, in order to meet the needs
of the community for nine miles of trails, this action item has to be part of the Residential Street
Paving Program. As the major residential streets are paved, wide shoulders or sidewalks need to
be included in the work. In addition, the City needs to try to provide a safe waterfront walking
area along Sinclair Inlet. Safe walking areas along the major residential streets in Port Orchard
can be coordinated with the paths of Kitsap County to create one continuous walking/bicycle
circuit. An excellent example of a continuous walking path is the proposed Kitsap County
Mosquito Fleet Bicycle Trail system, which will go along Sinclair Inlet.
Although the emphasis is to maintain the park system, the number of parks has to increase to
meet the demands of the new population. There is a shortage of park facilities in the Fireweed
Road neighborhood and the Melcher/Pottery neighborhood. In the next 20 years, the City will
need a minimum of 5 acres for new parks.
PRIORITY
The priority of needs would be established based upon demands and requirements. A listing of
the priorities is as follows:
1. First priority is for those items demanded by the public which are also defined as
an existing need.
2. Second priority is for those items which are not identified as a recognized need,
but are desired by the public.
3. Future needs
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 43
PROJECTS
FIRST PRIORITY
1. The City needs to consistently allocate a minimum of $5,000 for upgrade or repair of
playground equipment in existing parks.
2. The City needs to establish a fund to purchase future park property.
3. A walkway that can accommodate bicycles needs to be constructed along Bay Street
for the full length of the City.
4. Pottery Avenue and Sidney Avenue, south of Tremont Street, should have wide
shoulders or sidewalks added to the roadway to allow for pedestrian use.
5. The City needs to provide for a park of at 1 ½ to 2 acres to serve the future growth in
the vicinity of Planning Areas 1 and 6.
SECOND PRIORITY
1. Coordination with road improvement projects should be sought to increase the
amount of walking area along the roads.
2. Once the Open Space Plan of Kitsap County is adopted, the City should seek to
coordinate its future projects with that County plan.
3. Establish projects which would be compatible with the Mosquito Fleet Bicycle Trail.
THIRD PRIORITY
1. A viewing deck or educational area that overlooks Blackjack Creek needs to be
constructed .
2. The beach near Westbay Shopping Center should be improved to provide better
waterfront access.
3. The City needs to remain aware of opportunities to provide a conference center in the
downtown area.
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 44
ENCLOSURES
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 45
TOTAL ACREAGE BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ACREAGE
Community Facilities 258
Commercial 284
Employment Opportunity 105
Greenbelt 220
Mixed use 30
Residential R-8 438
Residential R-20 111
Residential R-45 760
Residential; Mobile Home 10
TOTAL ACREAGE 2216
Source: The above results were tabulated by from the GIS system.
ENCLOSURE ONE
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan Page 46
1980 Census Data
Census Tract 922 923 924 925
Population 4,094 4,761 4,919 3,830
No. of Housing Units 1,609 1,664 1,642 1,413
No. of Families 1,017 1,272 1,347 917
No. of Households 1,516 1,602 1,602 1,269
No. of Caucasians 3,903 4,494 4,507 3,566
No. of Minorities 191 267 412 264
Residents of homes
for the aged 124 0 0 105
Lived in the same house
for more than 5 years 1,341 1,479 1,418 1,897
1990 Census Data
Census Tract 922 923 924 925
Population 4,237 4,761 6,125 4,087
No. of Housing Units 720 1,717 2,275 1,563
No. of Families 1,034 1,279 1,639 1,035
No. of Households 1,632 1,668 2,218 1,487
No. of Caucasians 3,919 4,296 5,512 3,885
No. of Minorities 318 465 613 202
Residents of homes
for the aged 320 8 0 314
Lived in the same house
for more than 5 years 818 1,058 1,206 1,021
Source: Puget Sound Council of Regional Governments, 1990.
ENCLOSURE TWO
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan
APPENDIX 1:
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
PROJECT
Port Orchard Waterfront
Revitalization Project
City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, WA
1933
3 May 1983
The Honorable Lee Caldwell
Mayor, City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, Washington
ka1pri1in • pettinari de1ign
architect/ and urban planneu
2031 ea1tlake ave, 1eattle 98102 328·0900
Dear Mayor Caldwell:
We are very pleased to submit the City of Port Orchard Downtown Revitalization
Recommendations to the City and citizens of Port Orchard. These recommenda-
tions represent six months of intensive study working with the Revitalization
Task Force, th City Council and City Planning Commission. We are confident
that this report portrays the community's objectives and ideas in a realistic
and achievable manner.
We have designed this report both as a graphically illustrated design instruc-
tion book and a document which promotes the resources of the community. The
recommendations strive to capture the assets and potentials of those resources
for the future economic and physical benefit of the community.
Our study team, which consisted of I<ASPRISIN-PETTINARI DESIGN and JUMP,
HUIBREGTSE, STOUDER, INC., have enjoyed working with the city's elected
officials, city staff, and the Task Force Members. We are very encouraged by
the leadership which exists in both the public and private sectors of the Port
Orchard community and are confident of the increase in the quality of life
that the leadership will engender for the downtown and waterfront areas.
We trust we have fulfilled the charge given to us by the City and
to seeing the recommendations presented in this report becoming
are always available to assist you in any way possible in
development of your city.
Sincerely,
Mil~
Ronald J. KasJrisin 1 I
Architect andrurban P~ner
RJK/rb
look forward
reality. Wf
the future
WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION
PROJECT
:JITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Port Orchard, Washington
1983
he City of Port Orchard
ort Orchard, Hashington
ayor Lee F. Caldwell
~ormer Mayor) Paul Powers Jr.
i ty Council Members
=onard Clark
)bert Geiger
)hn Clauson
ngaret Jane t1i ller
1uck Childress
:rald Grosso
.m Hilson
.ty Planning Commission
>hn Hokanson, Chairman
'onard Minor
nneth Hacker
th Strube
rlene Thompson
muel Taylor
m Hong
lan Barger
ty Staff
rry Curles, City Engineer
ry Smith
ASPRISIN-PETTINARI DESIGN
.rchitects and Urban Planners
eattle, Wa.
ump, Huibregtse, Stouder, Inc.
ngineers and Planners
en ton-Selah, W A.
Special Thanks To:
Revitalization Task Force:
Ken Cherry
Russel Halsted
Ron Mason
Carolyn Powers
Arnold Norem
Herb Thelson
Marvin Coe
Jerry Burkhardt
Low Reichter
Barbara Stamp
Jim Armstrong
Jorden Cohen
Millard Buford
Marlin Mangles
Bi 11 S trankman
\tJe greatfully acknowledge the flying skills of Larry
Curles, City Engineer -The Red Baron would have
been proud.
Use of graphics within this document may be used
only with the expressed written permission of the
City of Port Orchard or Kasprisin-Pettinari Design.
The graphics may not be used in the production of
any artifact intended for sale or trade for personal
gain or use.
This project was supported, in part, by funds from
the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, administered by the
Department of Ecology, State of Washington.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Purpose and Use of This Document • . . . . . . . . • . . • • . •
Preface
I The Setting: Faators Infl.uenoing Development .
Area Resources
Business Survey . . • . . . . . . . . • . · · · ·
2 The Projects: Design Eooommendations
Overview
Recommendations by District
City Entry •
Sidney Hill
Downtown ..
Marina Water Edge
Downtown East Entry
Highway Commercial •
West Bay • . • . • •
3 The Next Step: Strategy and Implementation
Organization . • . . . •
Management/Financial Plan
Federal Financial Assistance
State Financial Assistance
Economic Recovery Tax Act
Port of Call Package
Financial Plan & Project Summary
5
15
19
21
25
26
30
32
38
42
43
44
47
49
50
51
55
56
60
64
PURPOSE AND USE OF TinS DOCUMENT
The objectives of this study are to develop
recommendations for revitalizing the downtown and
waterfront areas of the City of Port Orchard. Those
recommendations are presented in this document.
The purpose and use of this document is threefold:
1 to identify and describe those projects in
downto.vn. and along the waterfront which can be
realistically and affordably accauplished;
2 to demonstrate the manner in which those projects
can be accauplished, both through local efforts
and financing and, through assistance fran
federal, state and/or other non-local sources;
.. to serve as a prarotional docunent for use by
both the City of Port Orchard and the merchants
and citizenry in pursuit of revitalization
objectives.
Port Orchard has the opportunity to use the
outstanding natural and developed resources of the
surrounding area to greatly improve its image and
economic base. Promoting these resources as a part
of a revitalization strategy is a significant
objective for the use of this document. Examples of
such promotion effort include:
• the report should be submitted to state and
federal legislators as a means of documenting
the City's development objectives and
informing the legislators of the specific
projects and funding strategies the City
anticipates assistance in developing;
• submission of the report or sections of the
report to Puget Sound area travel
associations, travel agents, visitor
associations;
• submission to cruise ship companies such as
the Virginia V. Foundation, West Tours and
charter boat operations to demonstrate the
present and future visitor industry
development activities of the area;
• the report should be circulated to the library
and the Port Orchard Historical Society.
In addition, the document and its graphics should be
made available to special local interest groups for
the promotion and development of private sector
economies which relate to downtown and waterfront
revitalization. Such groups could include:
• The downtown association(s);
• local merchants and realtors;
• local and area chamber of commerces;
• private investor groups;
• The Port of Bremerton.
Finally, this report should becorre a necessary and
on-going tool for the private sector in the
revitalization of downtown Port Orchard and its
waterfront.
PREFACE
The Port Orchard DawntCMn Waterfront Revitalization
Project is being sponsored and managed by the City of
Port Orchard. The finn KASPRISIN-PETI'INARI DESIGN,
Architects and Urban Planners, is under contract to the
City to develop the waterfront developrent plan. The
funding for the study is provided by the City of Port
Orchard and the Office of Coastal Zone Managarent,
National Oceanic and Atrrospheric Adm:i.nistration, u.s.
Department of Cormerce, administered by the Depa.rt:Ilent
of Ecology, State of Washington. The project is
assisted by a Task Force of area residents, property
owners, business people and city officials.
The project area encatpasses the total waterfront
within the city limits with special attention on the
do.mtoNn area. While dealing with the waterfront area,
the study assesses the related issues of parking,
retail activity and the changing use of the dCMnt:o.m.
The project began on Noverrber 1, 1982, with the first
Task Force rreeting in City Hall. On Deoerrber 14, 1982,
the Task Force rret to discuss issues and direction. On
January 17, 1983, an open house was held in the Ho.ve
Building at Frederick and Bay Streets to gain input
from the general public. This open house, referred to
as a "design studio," proved a big success with over
sixty people providing input for the designers. On
!'larch 2, 1983, the study team circulated a newspaper
insert in the Port Orchard Independent for public
infonnation and project prarotion. On the evening of
~larch 7, 1983, there was a major presentation of desiqn
concepts and site specific recamendations. On the
evening of April 11, 1983, the Task Force _and City
Council reviewed final reccmren.dations and the study
team proceeded with preparation of the final dOC1..l!rent.
THE PLANNING DOCUMENT
This document has been designed to emphasize design
concepts and specific design recommendations.
The report is organized into three chapters:
• Context: a description of the locationa1 assets
of Port Orchard as well as a sumnary of those
significant influences affecting developrent;
• Design Recartrendations: specific proposals for
revitalization in both the public and private
sectors;
• The Next Step ... : a discussion of strategy and
rrethods to implerrent the designs.
Many projects are presented with the anticipation
that their implementation could occur within the
first year. Other projects, r•1ore complex, arc
described in relationship to the additional planning,
coordination and design necessary to make them happen.
Finally, while this document deals primarily with the
do;mtown area of Port Orchard and the uruuediatv
waterfront ancl upland areas within the city tound,Hi,
the dcsiCJil approach and community involvement will 'i:
lvere so important to the success of this document <1rc•
llso possibte in other areas of the city.
2
1 THE SETTING ...
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
DEVELOPMENT
i n
A VISITOR'S VIEW -'l'HE MISSOURJ AND PORT ORCHARD
4
area resources
In order to understand and appreciate the potential of
the Port Orchard ccmnuni ty it is necessary to
..mderstand the physical proximity of the carmunity to
l'lestern Washington's nount.ain and water resources,
recreational opportunities, and urban centers. The
future of the canmuni ty' s image, Port Orchard' s
:::crrrrercial center revitalization, and the future
:!COnanic base of the ccmnunity is directly related to
t.he recognition of and appreciation for those natural
resources.
!igh 1 ights of the area's resources and history are
~esented to the reader as a backdrop for the design
>roposals which follow in later chapters.
HE PUGET SOUND REGION
haracteristic's of Port Orchard's regional location
nclude:
• the composition of forests, water and
mountains of Western Washington;
• the Olympic ~buntain range thirty miles to the
west;
• access to the City of Tacoma twenty miles to
the south;
• access to the City of Seattle fifteen miles to
the east;
•
•
•
direct access to the City of Bremerton nine
land miles (three water miles) to the north;
views southeast to ~bunt Rainier and northwest
to the Olympic Mountains;
and, the employment, recreation and livability
of Kitsap county.
ITTSAP COUNTY
ltsap county lies between the
Jrridor of Tacoma-5eattle-Lverett
developing
and the
)Ltntai ns and raci fi c Ocean to the west. The
mflscape is characterized by the shorelines
urban
Olympic
county
of the
bays and inlets of central Puget Sound as well as the
glaciated inland ridges and bluffs formed by the Vashon
Glacier some 14,000 years ago. Significantly for the
City of Port Orchard, access to Kitsap County from the
east for the past 100 years or so has been limited and
has provided the carmunity with an isolation and
insulation which has remained until the last decade.
The county's image is strongly influenced by the
smaller inlet communities of Poulsbo, Silverdale,
Kingston, Manchester and Port Orchard. As Kitsap
County responds and reacts to the increased
development of marine and military related economic
activity, so too is Port Orchard, the County seat,
changing arrl m:xlifying its role and function.
Kitsap county land use policy is promoting high
density population growth at and near urban
centers. For the South Ki tsap County planning
district, Port Orchard and Manchester are those
urban centers containing or having potenial for the
necessary services to support the higher population
concentrations. A county objective is to protect
the rural character of the Kitsap peninsula and
control the growth associated with the developing
military related employment base.
County population, by county estimates, will
increase from the 1975 figure of 26, ';DO in South
Ki tsap to 42,000 by 1985, two years away. The 4, 600
population of Port Orchard will definitely be
impacted by the county growth, possibly exceeding
5,000 by 1985 •
The military employment base is expanding at the
Bangor Naval Reservation northwest of Port Orchard,
at the naval ship yard at Bremerton immediately
north of the city, and at the Keyport Naval Research
Station to the west. Associated impacts on Port
Orchard will involve annexation pressures, increased
service requirements, additional outlying shopping
plaza proposals, and traffic and transportation
problems.
c~
, · ri
I -· I ·' /
c .vancouver/ ' ,
' j <:-.; 1\
//
pacific ocean
15 12.5 0 15 30 '"' 45 liilllillllli~lll\111 ~1111 ~1111f:.:rmrJ.,,, .• :,J,:il.:il:l'li':l'.1 11111111 ,111,1111 ,11:111111~.1,111 jlltlltllllllli,llrr·,r,;, '· 1
gaphic scale 1" = 15 mile>;
6
THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
'l'he physical characteristics of the city consist of the
ever present waterfront along Sinclair Inlet, uplands
which rise sharply fran the water's edge along the
northern portion of the city characterized by
north-south ravines serving as drainage ways to
Sinclair Inlet. 'IWo predominant ravines bound the
downtown commercial center of Port Orchard, Blackjack
Creek on the east and Port Orchard Boulevard (a
historic drainage area) on the west. An additional
ravine exists east of Blackjack Creek and forms the
corridor for SR-160, Bay Street.
~~-/
2000 0 2'000 40010
r ... , •• l. ... J''',...."''-•-,..
9'"9hlc -1• l"=:KI00'-0"
NORTH
Blackjack Creek is a significant salmon habitat in the
Sinclair Inlet Basin. Chum, coho, and chinook salm::ln,
steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout all occupy the
creek drainage. Chum salmon utilize the lower reaches
for spawning and rearing. No significant habitats
exist for fish species along the City of Port Orchard's
Sinclair Inlet waterfront.
To constructively deal with the impacts of county
growth, Port Orchard must modify its image and role
as a small waterfront camrunity. In no
mmner need the values and int.imacy of the small
carmunity change drastically; hc:1wever, as services,
housing, shopping areas and public facilities expand
away fran the water's edge, the role of the historic
waterfront center needs to adjust. As Port Orchard
develops further as a "focus" or center of activity for
South Kitsap County, the resources of its natural
setting, the views, recreation potential and quality of
life need to be reassert:L->d and praroted as inherent
characteristics in the emerging Port Orchard community.
~--------------------------·m··-----
: 400 0 1600 2400 ! 'f:O,.m;rlJ( IJm!'lll!l~liriiWIII:IIIIf.PO ('!lillll/~11111/l~I!IIIIH~ JH)I!rll.ll~( 1111
\.'h·ltrr:illlrllll:l:/1111!
graphic ICIIe 1" = 800 '
NORTH
elnclelr Inlet
The Port Orchard Downtown Waterfront
Revitalization Project is bounded on the
north by the harbor line, on the east by
the city limits, on the south by the
upland residential areas, and on the west
by the city limits.
8
IDS TORY
The following are swmnary glimpses from
Hllat 's In A Name" Kit sap County d ! li -olnry,
by the Ki tsap County Hi stonca l 3oc ter_y.
"3 idney,
Published
The town of Sidney (Port Orchard) was niJ.IIled after
Sidney Stevens by his son Frederick when the town
was being plotted in 1886. While Sidney became Port
Orchard in 1903, there were in actuality four Port
Orchards in the Sinclair Inlet area: l) the early
mill to1m at Enetai; 2) Charleston (formerly Port
Orchard); 3) in 1890, the town of Port Orchard two
miles west of Bremerton; 4) and the existing City of
Port Orchard (Sidney).
Port Orchard (Sidney) has been the county seat since
1893. The physical development of the town began in
1886 and was bound by Sinclair Inlet {Port Orchard
Bay) on the north, Sidney Street on the east,
Division Street on the south and \lest 3treet on the
west.
In 18~ the boundaries were fixed by the Inlet on
the north, Mitchel Road on the east, on the south by
>outh Street, and one blcx::k west of Short Street on
the west.
:_,unt:Jer was the prirPary industry until a Navy Conmi.ssion
;;elected Port Orchard Bay as a site for the second
'acific Coast Naval Base. In addition to the naval
~se, two steam sawmills and shingle mills operated on
3lackjack Creek. A large pottery and terra-cotta plant
vas lcx::ated at the foot of Pottery Hill. Fire
lispatched both the pottery and shingle mills.
:n 1888 Bay Street was beach or tidelands, flooding
1ith salt water with every tide. The first "LID"
:or improvements was placed on lcx::al saloons in the
-orm of a license tax or poll tax and Sidney and Bay
treets were improved. By 1905, Bay Street was a
ooden boardwalk containing over twelve structures
ncluding the s.s. Finney Livery Barn, Weber's
aloon, Corbetts' Drug 3tore, the Yakie Building,
he Brick HoteL Hiller's General Merchandise,
avie 's Grocery Store, a Methodist Church, a First
hristian Church, a funeral parlor, the Shingle
ill, Dempster Cottage and Ainsworth's Grocery.
n the late 1880's and 90's several railroad surveys
ere conducted which impacted, at least, the names of
Jrt Orchard's streets. Examples include "Depot
treet" in Annapolis, "Hailroad Avenue" in the Potter:l
reek ravine, and "Railroad Addition."
1 18'.'t2, the county seat was approved for 3 idney,
moving from Port Madison. In 1~8, the Washington
Veterans flame was located to the east of town.
Sidney Hi 11 was referred to as "Fort Hi 11" in the
early days and was secured with a cannon from the
old steamer Polytofsl<y, a gunboat inherited from
Russia with the U.S. purchase of Alaska.
Much of Port Orchard's history is clearly related to
the water and ships. Early residents of Port
Orchard (Sidney) were not adverse to rowing to
Seattle although sai 1 boat transport was more
common. Around 1888, steamer service began to the
Bay from Seattle, Colby, and Manchester. The early
steamers were the Leif Erickson, the Helen, the
Grace, the r.buntaineer, the A.R. Robinson-;--airl the
sai1Juan. Sternwheelers were also used up to 1~0.
Freight was handled primarily by sailboats such as
the schooners Harry, Cora, and Joaquin. Around
1900, more substantial craft plied the Bay such as
the Athlon and Inland Flyer (forerunners of the
Virginia class). Others joined the fleet and the
H.B. Kennedy (changed to the Seattle) became an
automotive ferry in the early 1930's. The City of
Bremerton was the first automobile ferry to serve
Port Orchard Bay.
Passenger and vehicle steamer and ferry ships have
played a dramatic part in Port Orchard's history,
Names of a few of the ships include: Chippewa,
Enetai, Willapa., City of Sacramento, and Malahat.
There may be a place in Port Orchard's future for at
least the rememberance of the r.bsgui to Fleet.
ARCIDTECTURE
Architecture: Fire has claimed many of the original
Port Orchard-6idney structures s1nce the 1890's. In
1895, nineteen buildings of the business center of
Sidney were destroyed. Despite. fire and perennial
economic hardtimes, the downtown has rebuilt and
remodelled itself over the last ninety years. Basic
materials included wood and wood frame oontruction.
Design was actually quite diverse, reflecting the
dreams and aspirations of the community. Styles
ranged from the mid-victorian and somewhat elaborate
Sidney Hotel to the work buildings of the Port
Orchard dcx::ks.
The Sidney Hotel (Navy View Hotel) , corrpleted in 1893,
contained forty-five rooms, a dining room, a
lobby/ballroom and bar, plus utility roams. The hotel
was ITDved two blocks to its present location in 1910
after a flash flood damaged the foundation.
Historically, uses have varied fran the stately and
elegant Navy Vit.!W Hotel to a work house for the county.
produce
navy vie
dance ha
•
• . .
-. rJ
"
.,, ~
tage, .( Bt
--~ ~; ft~,.· • . 4ft • ... ·... ..
hotel " • "• .., ... '• ..
'• "'· . ,.
•·
• ..
.. ' I
......
Port Orchard 1914
Port Orchard 1982
ter:mi.DBl
.. •• • • • I ..
~J \~ u
11-}... u
I
oC
The structure is presently vacant and in a state of
partial restoration.
Miller 1 s General Merchandise (Blanchard 1 s Depart:nent
Store), located on Bay Street, was a splendid example
Oflate 1880 architecture containing a Victorian
b#o-story high, narrow front fascade. Constructed of
~ frame materials and finished with ship lap siding,
the building is highlighted by bracketed cornices and
rrezzanine winda.vs along Bay Street and Sidney.
632 Bay Street Buildings (Soo Hoy Cafe), is notable
as an example of numerous structures in Port
Orchard's history having the same front fascade and
roof pitch characteristics. The 632 Building is
essentially the last remaining fascade of this type .
Al2 Bay Street Building (Howe Building) became a
landmark as a dominant, concrete constructed
building prominently situated at Bay Street and
Frederick Street.
Brick Store Block, at the corner of Bay and Sidney
Streets, is a one-story commercial structure
significant for its corbelled brick fascade.
Callison's, Inc., Buyers Building, originally
constructed as a warehouse, is a ~ frame one-story
structure with typical pitched roof, high parapet
fascade and V-drop siding. Th rear portion of the
building is still on pilings over the water. The
wilding is typical of the Port Orchard dock and
warehouse structures constructed around 1900.
The present day Bay Street fa cade contains many
architectural forms and elements from the early 1900
Port Orchard building stock. They provide a
substantial base for a genuine and inherent Port
Orchard image, one which is directly integrated to
the history and growth of the community.
10
SINCLAIR INLET
D
County Bldg
Orchard
Ravine
Commercial
Creek
Ravine
Tidelands
r
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
WA. Veterans
Home
The overall development pattern follows the
shoreline and ravine geography. Filled tidelands
have altered the natural state of the shoreline
since the late 1800s, providing the only available
building area at the water level. The Fort Orchard
Blvd. ravine area, Blackjack Creek ravine and the
ravine traversed by Highway 160 provide both
drainage and access from the upland bluff to the
waterfront.
Commercial development occurs along the waterfront
tidelands at the base of the bluff in a linear
configuration. While land availability for
development does not exist· in large sections,
quality building in-full on vacant and under
utilized property along the waterfront offers
potential expansion space for water dependent and
related uses.
BREVIOUS DEVELOPMENr . PROPOSALS
In 1966, Port Orchard completed a comprehensive plan
for the city and downtown area. As a point of
reference, the development recommendations for the
downtown and waterfront are summarized below.
Pertinent aspects of the plan include:
• a scenic waterfront beach drive, from the
De !<alb Street right-of-way connecting to Bay
Avenue east of the West Bay Commercial area:
• a substantial fill of the tidelands along the
waterfront from the De Kale Street waterway to
and including Blackjack Creek and West Bay;
e a waterfront park and restaurant on newly
filled tidelands;
• a new yacht club marina,
filled tidelands at the
Creek:
boat sale area on
mouth of Blackjack
• and, an ex~~ndL~, east-west commercial wall to
the north side of the existing Bay 3 treet
complex; a civic center/auditorium was
included in the development;
• A relocation of city hall to Sidney Street and
the Blackjack Creek extension (present by-pass
proFQsal);
• and, a new waterfront motel.
Ferry
Auditorium
sr 160
12
Sinclair Inlet
J
·········· .
• •
WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
The majority of the project area
unconsolidated fill material dating
to 18SO.
is
back
located on
in stages
The geology of the waterfront consists of fill
material with fair to poor foundation suitability
and very poor seismic stability. The maximum damage
during the April 1949 earthquake occured in
structures built on fill conditions.
3lopes bounding the project area and the downtown
are generally greater that 15% and are not suitable
for significant construction.
~ surf smelt critical habitat area occurs outside of
the project area between the western city limits and
the highway 16 turnoff. Significant coastal drift
:x::curs at the mouth of Blackjack Creek which is
.3
Marina
• •
•
: ... -.::;:: ::: .. -.::. .. _: ':."'--:~_ .. : : ... · .. -.:: :~·!.-.... ~---~
daninated by a sand shelf. The drift is northwest in
direction, east of the creek; and west, west of the
creek. Where structural rip rap is not present along
the creek shoreline, notable eroding exists.
Wave action is fran the northeast, varying fran
one-half foot to two feet in height 7. 5% of the tine
and 30% fran the north.
WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES
The Mosquito fleet has served Sinclair Inlet from
the 1890's to the present, with state as well as
private vessels providing transport. The early Port
Orchard-5 idney waterfront was characterized by
finger piers extending out over the tidelands for
steamer and fc•rry use. During the early 19i\J's the
Port of Bremerton contructed a marina along the
.
'
Westbay
.i• I •
"' I . ',\. ··-• :t I • -w• . -~:
downtown waterfront which greatly enhances the
marine use of downtown. The marina consists of the
following:
• 360 total berths, approximately 75% of them
covered; space for expansion is available;
• 1,200 feet of visiting boat area inside the
breakwater and an equal amount outside for
larger boats;
• a deep water harbor ranging in depth from 30
to 50 feet; and, a minimum of fifteen feet
depth at the shoreline.
The privately owned Port Orchard-Bremerton passenger
ferry utilizes the Sidney Street vlaterway and
provides service to Port Orchard, Annapolis and the
Bremerton Naval Shipyard. This ferry transports
between 1,200 and 1,600 persons across Sinclair
Inlet every work day.
14
COUNTY OFFICES
Port Orchard is the County seat. In 1980-1981 it
rem:xlelled and extensively expanded the facilities to
the south of downto,.m at the top of CJine Street.
Approximately 350 people are employed by the county at
the facility. In 1983, work l:::xcqan on the new Kitsap
County Work Release facility associated with the
existing County CallJlex.
PORT ORCHARD BY-PASS
[n an effort to reduce traffic congestion into and
:hrough the downtown area, the City of Port Orchard
ls presently involved in the development of a
)y-pass connecting Tremont to Lund Street (the
)referred connector). This connector will cross
llackjack Creek ravine between Tremont and Lund
.treet in a four lane configuration between Port
>rchard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue and for a
>00-foot section of Lund Street west of Bethel. The
ntersections of the by-pass connector and Port
lrchard Blvd, SidneyAvenue (!bad), and Bethel Road
11 will have signalizations and pavement
mprovements. According to the City of Port Orchard
y-Pass Envirorunental Impact Statement,
pproximately one-third of the traffic on Bay Street
nd one-half the traffic on Sedgewich (the two
ast-west existing connectors), will be diverted to
1is route upon construction of the by-pass.
::ITSAP TRANSIT
. tsap Transit initiated bus service for Port
:chard and Ki tsap County on M:mday, April 18,
~83. Three bus routes for Port Orchard began at
te foot of the ferry dock in downtown and go to
~ar Heights, Bransonwood, and Orchard Heights. In
tdi tion, a special commuter run for foot ferry
,ssengers services the Annapolis dock.
tsap Transit was created in the fall of 1982 with
'ter approval of the Public Transit Benefit Area
TBA), funding commuter, local Bremerton, and
nior citizen transportation through the Kitsap
ninsula Housing and Transportation Association.
uth Ki tsap County is serviced by the "County Line"
ich began operation April 4, 1983.
JaCts on the downtown development recommendations
" discussed in a later chapter.
business survey
Dun ng Novem0her l <J82, lnterviews were conaucted
with conununity leaders, downtown business people,
ano lan<l and bui ldincJ owners to assess their
attitudes, aspirations, fears and leadership
abi l i tiPs regarding the future of downtown and the
adjacent waterfront. The results and assessment of
those interviews are provided below as a prelude to
discussions of proposed design improvements and
design strategies.
St
Sedgwick Rd
A downtown I\Orkshop was conducted on January 17,
1983 to gather community-at-large response to the
waterfront downtown developnent project. In
addition, a special newspaper insert was included in
the Port Orchard Independent newspaper on March 2,
1983.
THE ECONOMY
It is accepted that the Pacific Northwest's economy
has greater difficulties than that of the nation.
Many feel that the nation's ecot.omic conditions are
the result of decline of productivity, years of
inflation, increased foreign competition, and
continual federal deficits, all combining to stifle
real growth and investment at home. The structural
difficulties in the economy are defined in a manner
that so., utions require new investment and new
production models, such as restructuring the steel
and auto industry, if the nation's industrial base
is to regain its competitive edge in the world
competition. ~'lhile the State of \'Jashington is not
dependent upon the steel, auto, and other basic
industries, as much of the ~tidwest and Northeast is,
it does, however, have several economies, the forest
products industry and the agricultural industry,
that are suffering from the same malaise.
The forest products industry, because of the decline of
the housing industry the past several years, and
because of increasing competition from other parts of
the country and the ....orld, has been in disastrous
shape. It may never fully recover its previous
inportance in the No~st. Even with increases in
housing activity, many of the hones to be constructed
over the next decade are probably going to require less
lumber and fewer other wood products.
A second vital econanic activity, the agriculture of
the State, is also experiencing increasing competition
plus rising costs.
All of these relate to the amount of expendable
income in the state, and while not directly
impacting Port Orchard, impact the market it is
attempting to pursue, r~ional tourism, and the
disposable recreational and leisure dollar further
discussed below.
The area's economy is significantly impacted by the
importance of the nearby Naval shipyard in employ-
ment and income. In one document reviewed, Kitsap
County is reported to have the highest per capita
dollar amount of federal expenditure of any county
in the nation. The significance of this is not lost
on the average business in the area, and neither are
the fluctuations in the federal or military
employment. The increased activity announced
several months ago will bring more employment and
income to the area, but as one Port Orchard
businessperson observed, its impact on Port Orchard
will be in three ways: increased real estate
activity, increased gasoline sales, and increased
traffic and circulation problems. As the military
base is apparently served by two excellent PX's,
traditional retailers are facing pricing competition
beyond their ability to compete.
DOWNTOWN IDENTITY
Throughout the interviews with the downtown
businesspeople and others with knowledge or experience
in the econanics of the downtown, caments almost
without exception indicated that the future of the
downtown was tied to recreation and tourism
opportunities, coupled with the advantages provided by
the natural waterfront and not in competition with the
central business district of Brenerton, or with the PX' s
provided by the Naval Base. In addi lion, the
respondents reoognize that Port Orchard had sane
advantages that the other areas don't possess, that is,
the waterfront and Port of Brerrerton, Port Orchard
marina noorage in the downtown.
Many of the businesses that are now in operation
exist because of tourism and the downtown
waterfront. For example, the Hariner's Mug, several
taverns and knickknack shops occur downtown. They
probably would not be there if it wasn't for the
proximity to the waterfront and the marina. \Vhile
some traditional retailers still operate, such as
Rice Electric and Blanchard's Department Store,
these either are family businesses that have been in
operation for several generations, or are businesses
undergoing change and becoming more specialized,
catering to an increasing tourism, visitor market.
If Port Orchard is to contain a downtown with strong
retail services, it may be necessary to continue to
specialize and create its own market, that is, the
establishment of stores and activities of interest
to visitors and boaters. The recognition of this
identity does, in fact, now exist. The future
requires that it be emphasised and planned for in a
more organized and concerted fashion.
The two problems most frequently identified by members
of the downtown camnmity are parking and traffic
circulation. To sane degree, the circulation problem,
which largely creates the parking problem, will be
significantly alleviated as the bypass is constructed
during the next several years. The exdct nature of the
parking problem is related to competition for available
spaces between ccnrnuters and shoppers. The solution
rnost likely hinges on the future of parking provision
for commuters away from the waterfront. In a parking-
16
ferry survey conducted by the study team during the
w1.nter of 1983, over 50% of cc:mnuters using the
passenger ferry parked in the downtown. The remaining
50% either walked home, walked to outlying areas where
tl1eir cars were parked or were picked up in the
do.-.rnto.vn area. The parking survey also indicated
nl.ll1l(:rous vacant shopper parking spaces throughout the
day. There are obviously nore consurrer-oriented uses
uf the waterfront than as a parking lot tor workers
cc:mnuting to the shipyard. The parking problem is not
one of a lack of adequate spaces, but one of location
and circulation to and fran the parking spaces.
MANAGE:MENT AND ORGANIZATION
Downtown Port Orchard is characterized by a
significant number of individuals who aggressively
pursue business and development opportunities, and
who appear to genuinely work together in solving
problems. The marquee along the store front is one
example. This was establised some 11 years ago by a
Local Improvement District (LID) process and cost
approximately ~140,000. Most businesspeople pay
from 1300 to SSOO a year in amortizing the LID. The
records and accounting on this process are
maintained by the City Clerk-Treasurer, and
apparently has proceeded over the years without any
major difficulties.
A second existing organizational structure is the
Port Orchard Downtown Improvement Association, a
>ubchapter S corporation composed of some 10 to 12
businesspeople who organized themselves to invest in
Jpportunities in the downtown. Its first venture
Nas the acquisition and rehabilitation of the
JUilding which now houses the theater. This group
is organized to take advantage of other
Jpportunities if they were feasible, such as the
>cquisition of the vacant lot next to Cook's
Jelicatessen, or a venture into the Howe Building.
rhird, it appears that in many instances when things
1eed to get done, the business community meets and
liscusses the issue through an informal
1ssociation. Advertising formats, hours, and other
~omotional activities are examples of this, all
tpparently done on an ad hoc and informal basis.
~ere is a loosely established downtown association
:hat apparently meets once a week or once a month,
o discuss downtown business ventures. During the
;tudy period, the various downtown associations met
o consolidate and unify their energies for downtown
evitalization.
'ourth, there are activity committees
,f the same people involved in the
7
often composed
above organized
or l=sely organized structures, who meet, plan, and
get things done on a special event basis. One
example is the Western Day celebration by a few key
individuals and attend~1 by over 10,000 people as
tourists or visitors. Another is the waterfront
festival, Fathoms of Fun, that in the past was
organized by the 01amber, but is now out from under
its organizational structure, and appears to
function by committee. The festival and
celebrations present a substantial source of revenue
and revitalization energy if properly ooordinated
and managed.
lVhile there do seem to be organizations or groups
that accomplish tasks, such as: l) paying off an
LID; 2) promoting investment opportunities in the
downtown; 3) coordinating advertising and promotion;
and 4) managing special events, there really is no
mechanism to tackle more difficult or long-range
problems, such as implementation of a downtown
design and redevelopment plan. In fact, one
conclusion of the survey is that there is not a
clear recognition on a regular basis of exactly how
things do or can get done in the downtown, and what
are specific problems. The process is dependent
upon a small group of individuals deciding that
something must happen, and then they themselves get
it done through their own energy and generally
without some recognized plan. This is an excellent
way to solve most minor problems, but a more
difficult problem or a more complex goal requires a
more systematic approach. Volunteerism works on a
short term basis, but produces a 'burn-out' effect
over time for most individuals, no matter how
dedicated.
Other suggested improvements and features for
downtown resulting from interviews are as follows:
• specialty shops including a jewelry store, an
ice cream parlor, a bakery on the waterfront,
a knick-knack shop, a bed and bath shop;
• painting the marquee;
• specialized pursuit of boater, marina trade;
• establish Bay Street as a one-way street;
• facilities and activities to attract the
Virginia V;
• encourage and expand the street fairs, farmers
market and festivals held downtown;
• restore the Sidney Hotel;
• increased community support for the downtown;
• installation of a telescope on the boardwalk;
• attracting "spin-off" activities associated
with Bremerton conventions and conferences,
such as the National Square Dance Convention
in 1984;
•
•
clean up storefronts, adding
and other decorations;
increased waterfront activities;
flags, flowers
• small gift shops unique to Port Orchard;
• tourism activities unique to Port Orchard;
• reduce the attitude of no parking when in fact
there is ample parking space;
• more downtown activities;
• bed and breakfact facilities on Sidney Hill
and in the Sidney fbtel, with a quality
restaurant;
• permanent parking for shoppers;
• a waterfront park for waterfront activities.
PARKING SURVEY
In January 1983, staff nenbers fran Kasprisin-Pettinari
Design interviewed ferry camuters between Port Orchard
and Brenerton as ~11 as conducted a parking lot
occupancy survey for the area north of Bay Street in
the downtcJ..m area. While acknOw'ledging that winter
travel and parking patterns may differ substantially
from suntrer season, they do indicate the local pattern
of ccmnuter and shopt-er activity. Findings of the
ferry users survey and parking inventory indicate that:
• the majority of ferry use is by those ccmnuting to
work, with the vast majority of those ccmnuters being
employed by the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
• CO!TITIUter use is disproJ:X)rtionately heavy at the
rtDrning and evening "rush hours"
• slightly rrore than half of the ferry users ccmnute
daily via the ferry and park at or near the ferry
terminal; the remainder are dropp€:!<1 off and picked up
or walk to the terminal
• the DowntOw'n and the Annapolis terminals share equal
proportions of commuter travel
• corrmuters indicated that adequate parking space
currently exists on the Port Orchard waterfrcr1t
• sufficient levels of shorter term parking currently
exist for shopping activity during the winter xronths
• the majority of commuters indicated a willingness to
use public transit if it were provided (and provided
at convenient and frequent intervals)
• one-way ccmnuter passenger traffic fran the ferry
system totals approximately l ,600 people per day with
Annap::>lis and Downtown sharing the load equally
The volurre and direction of overall pedestrian and
vehicular rroverrents to and through the study area are
inportant considerations. Besides being an issue of
safety they also contribute to or diminish the overall
quality of the use of the area for any reason. The
study team has and will continue to coordinate with
others resp::>nsible for planning and .i.nplerrenting
traffic and transit .i.nproverrents in the study area.
With proper coordination this plan will serve as a
guide to Kitsap Transit Authority regarding the
location of future transit st~s, passenger shelters,
and van and bus turnouts.
18
2 THE PROJECTS ...
DESIGIT
RECOMMEITDATIOITS
The urban waterfront of Port Orchard, from the
western city limit to Annapolis, should be perceived
as one integral community resource. This waterfront
provides water access, diverse places for economic,
social and recreational activities, and exists as a
continuous natural feature linking the many upland
'places' together.
ln order to illustrate this resource,
and potential for the community, and
which it can unify the upland
development of Port Orchard, this
present two levels of recommendations:
its importance
the manner 1n
or shoreline
chapter wi 11
• an OVERVIEW of the project with generalized
DESIGN GUIDLINES; and,
• site specific DESIGN REc:x::Mv!ENDATION3.
The Guidelines and recommendations are highlighted
by graphic translations depicting projects which
could be constructed over the next few years.
In order to clearly describe recamendations, the
overall project area is segrrented into DESIGN
DISTR.Icrs. Each district is defined by either a
physiographic feature, a collective image and/or
grouping of activities. These districts should prove
beneficial as rranagerrent tools, during implerrentation.
Each district is defined according to physical
characteristics and existing and proposed uses. Land
use recanmendations identify a primary or dominant
activity for each district as an intent or direction
for the future and do not exclude other existing
activities not related to the primary use. The
objectives of the reconmendations are to encourage a
clarification of activity for each district and better
relate future uses to the waterfront.
!I
1
• overv1ew
CHARACTERJSTICS
Activity District A Present Use Recommended Use
CITY ENTRY PRIMARY LS E:
• water related • vacant land • water related/
• water dependent • light indus-water dependent
• water view trial commercial and
• forested uplands • marine sales, industrial uses
moorage, boat such as boat
repair sales, repair, -----------------
0 100 200 300 ,_...,, _ _,.... . ...., 1'
NORTH
1 •
I
I
0
Activity District B
CITY HALL
• highly visible
Activity District C
SIDNEY HIIL
• higher ele-
vat ion
• significant
unique struc-
tures
• dominant loca-
tion
• on a 'bench' of
topography
Activity District D
CXMMERCIAL OJRE
• linear building
development
• one and two
storey build-
ings
• retail conuner-
cial
• adjacent park-
ing area on
north side
• primarily on
filled tide-
lands
• general comm-
ercial
• auto sales
• water access
(launch ramp)
• Goverrunent
• residential
• religious
• office conun-
ercial
• cultural/arts
• retail/
office/
service
• financial
• dining/enter-
tairunent
noorage, con-
struction and
landing
PRI.MMY lEE
• Government
PRI.MMY lEE
• residential
hotels (bed and
breakfast)
• Ancillary Uses:
-religious/semi
public
-cultural/ arts
-residential
-office comm-
PRI.MMY u:; E:
• retail/office/
service
• Ancillary Uses:
-tourism activ-
ies
-conununi ty
civic and
cultural uses
• open air market
• festivals
0
Activity District E
MARINA/WATER EOOE
• open and cover-• boat moorage
ed moorage • transport-
• sewage treat-ation(ferry)
ment facility • parking
• views of • sewage treat-
Sinclair Inlet ment
and naval ship-• public water
yard front access
e rcx:k rip-rap
along water
edge
100 too ...
PRIMARY lEE:
• marina/water
related-water
dependent uses
• Ancillary Uses:
-visitor
facilities
-conununity,
cultural/civic
facilities
~
Activity District F
fUVNTOtJN EAST ENTRY
• narrow passage
• steep upland
bluff
• no pedestrians
Activity District G
• upland bluff
• pavement,
autos, signs
• no pedestrians
• filled tide-
lands
ctivity District H
PRIMARY lEE:
• (waterside) • residential
-residential
• (upland side)
-general comm-
ercial/office
-residential
PRIMARY USE:
• auto dealer-• general commer-
ship cial
• general commer-
cial
• vacant
commercial
• residential
E3 T BAY CCMMERCIAL AREA. PRlllARY lSE:
• upland bluff/
residential
uses
• pavement,
signs, autos
• filled tide-
lands
• no pedestrians
• general • commercial
commercial retail
• office • office
• dining/enter-• Ancillary Uses:
tainrnent -dining/enter-
• financial tainrnent
• financial
.' !~({/
{I '\ ~
1 1
1 , , 1 r
' /: I
" 1:· i { i l!
Activity District I
MYAVJ:::NlJE
• water edge is
highly visibJe
• no waterfront
land
• upland bluff/
residentia 1
• open space
• residential
DESIGN GUIDELINES
PRIMAP-Y lSE:
• open space
• Ancillary Uses:
-residential
"
tJlj[J CJ
Design Guidelines which are common to or appropriat~
for all Design Districts are summarized belCJV.i as th~
FIRST STATEMENT OF AcriON. These apply to public and
private properties and buildings and inclentify image,
circulation, and community-wide waterfront improve-
ments.
l
··I
,, ,,
l FUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES THRa.JGI-DUT THE
~ AND WATERFRONT S!UJlD BE IMPROVED
THROOGH U\NIECAPING AND IMPROVED MA.IN'I'J'W\NCE.
2 I.J\.NIBCAPE THE PRCAJECT AREA FUBLIC THORaJGHFARES
WITH TR'::ES, SHRUEE AND GROlJND OOVER TO HIGHLIGHT
THE FOIUM.ING:
• entrances to the downtown area;
• specific buildings and groups of buildings of
cultural, historical or architecturual
significance;
• views to the waterfront; and, ter-
ritorial and Sinclair Inlet views.
3 UNIMPROVED OR PUBLICLY UNDER-UTILIZED
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ALONG THE WATERFRONT
SHOULD BE RETURNED TO PUBLIC USE, PAR-
TICULARLY ALONG STREAMS, AND WHERE PUBLIC
ACCESS CAN BE PROVIDED TO THE WATERFRONT.
II
''I,! I
I I
' I I
4 BUIIDING STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THE STUDY AREA
SH:XJID BE REHABILITATED TO MF.ET I.CX::A.L BUilDING
CX>DES.
5 BUiilliNG STRUCT'URl'S HAVING SI~IFICANT
ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
SHOUlD BE REHABILITATED IN A Ml\NNER REFLECTING,
lS MUCH lS FCSS IBLE, THEIR ORIGINAL APPEARANCE
AND DETAIL.
6 THE PORI' ORCHARD !XJ;JN"'''.;iN OORE SOOUID BE
RENOVATED lS A HJS'IDRIC MARINE CENTER REFLECTING
PORT ORCHARD'S HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE.
Circulation
7 THE CITY S HOUID INTEDRATE REVITALIZATION PLAN3
\'liTH KI'ISAP TRAl'B IT REGARDING PLATFORM:> AND BlE
CIRCULATION ROUTES •
8 THE CITY SHOULD EXPEDITE THE PORT ORCHARD
BY-PASS ROUTE AS A MEANS OF REDUCING
DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
. . ... ... 300
1" = 100'-(J''
Waterfront Improvements
g A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHOULD BE DEVELOPED
ALONG THE WATERFRONT, ON PUBLIC AND PRI-
VATE PROPERTY, CONNECTING SHORELINE AND
UPLAND ACTIVITY CENTERS.
l1QVISUAL ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT FROM
~ UPLAND AREAS SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND
ENHANCED, PARTICULARLY THROUGH PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
llWATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE PRIORI-
TIZED ACCORDING TO: WATER DEPENDENT AND
WATER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
recommendations
~lsign district
3
AREA DEOORIPriON
Approaches to Port Orchard both on Highway
no. 160 from the west and Beach Road/Bay
Avenue from the east are along the water and
are characterized by views of Sinclair Inlet,
the City of Bremerton, and the Olympic Moun-
tains. The western entry, Highway no. 160,
parallels marina and moorage facilities on
the north and wooded, sparcely developed
uplands on the south. From Pottery Avenue
Blvd. along Bay Street to the Cline Avenue-
Kitsap Street intersections, the entry to
Port Orchard is highlighted by older wood
shingled waterfront structures on pilings,
asphalt parking areas, the city government
buildings, the Sidney Hotel and some wooded
uplands.
Potential assets of the CITY ENTRY DISTRICT
include older wood frame, wood shingled
waterfront structures with local archi-
tectural significance; the Sidney Hotel
historical landmark, prominent on Sidney
Hill; and one-and two-story Bay Street
building facades, commercial in use.
City Entry
Required Actions ...
REVITALIZE THE ENTRY 'ID PORI' ORCHARD 'I'HRCXJGH
LJI.NrSCAPING, BUILDING RFSTORATIOO AND ENHANCED
PEDESTRIAN SPACES.
ENCOURAGE PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT OF ~iTATERFRCNT
PROPERI'IES WHIQf ENHANCE: \VATER DEPENDENT-RELATED
MARINE ACI'IVITIES •
DESIGN RECO:M::MENDATIONS
Visual Entry
Improve the visual entry to downtown
through expansion of the walkway system.
This should include marine oriented view-
ing platforms; installation of quality
designed entry signs and new pedestrian
light standards with banners; provisions
of efficiently laid out screened parking
areas; and, retention of upland wooded
areas along the south Bay street right-
of-way.
--~----------------------
Restore and safeguard the character and
use of the Horluck Transportation build-
ings west of the Gull Oil property.
Landscape the Bay Street-Cline Avenue-
Kitsap Street-Water Street intersection
with trees and shrubs to create an
arrival-space: an outdoor room framed by
trees and existing buildings with views of
Sidney Hotel and of Sinclair Inlet.
Street trees should be a minimum of 3 1/2
inch caliper at planting. Improve the
pedestrian areas within this space with
new sidewalks, a clear and safe separation
of automobiles and people, new light
standards and banners.
v1evJ ead maM'l ~ -/iJ\Jt({' l-::&1f'"!<;wJ
iP ,1w,mlt<wi
'-·{<":"5t(l1},-f
Developers of the proposed marina develop-
ment adjacent to. the De Kalb Street
waterway should construct an attractive
landscaped buffer between parking and
public waterways; and design the marina
support structures to be architecturally
compatible with surrounding older bull d-
ings and piers.
Future development of the Gull property
adjacent to the De K~lb st.reet. waterway
should meet the follow1ng cr1ter1a:
• development of a pedestrian walkway along
the northern and eastern edges of the site,
connecting to Bay Street;
• cooperative development with the City of
Port Orchard and the Port of Bremerton of a
covered viewing shelter and visiting boat
litering float at the northeast corner of
the property;
new_walk
-. .;
1
\
• landscaped screening of all
service areas from Bay Street
waterfront walkway;
parking
and from
and
the
• orientation of new buildings to enhance t:h('
idea of a CITY ENTRY to Port Orch<, n'l,
including use of setbacks and stagcwnerJ
building configurations
new trees
city hall
landscape screen
CITY ENTRY
view east
Water Street
TheWatPrStreet right-of-way and l:x:Bt launch ramp
should be up:Jraded to inc] ude a landscaped but fer
and raised concrete sidewalk six (6) feet minimum in
width. At the intersection of the \vater Street
walkway and Bay Street, the walkway should be
developed as a pedestrian plaza, reclaiming the full
extent of the right-of-way. This plaza will then
become a design component of the lanscaped CI'fY
ENTRY.
Waterfront Re-use
Private landowners should recycle waterfront
lands and buildings to enhance and take
advantage of the visitor industry growth
objectives for downtown by introducing addi-
tional dining and entertainment facilities
along the water's edge. The building group
between the De Kalb Street waterway and Water
Street north of Bay Street could be redevel-
oped as restaurants, drinking and enter~ain
ment facilities with ancillary spec1alty
shops. Redevelopment should follow these
critera:
• take advantage of the proximity to the De Kalb
Street waterway visitors anchorage, the
proposed private marina, the visual impact of
the CITY ENTRY, and the Water Street boat ramp;
• recycle the existing wood frame build-
ings to restore the scale, proportion,
material and facades of the buildings
as they were when first constructed.
• provide low landscape buffers between the CITY
ENTRY and off street parking areas, thus
contributing private landscape materials to
the public landscape improvements forming the
CITY ENTRY image.
AREA DESCRIPI'ION
The sidney Hill district is bounded by
Prospect street on the west and north, Sidney
Street on the east and Kitsap Street on the
south. The district is characterized by its
higher topographic elevation above Bay
Street, the historic Sidney Hotel, a grouping
of older quality residential structures along
K1tsap Street, the church complex at the
intersection of Kitsap and Sidney Streets
with its predominant steeple and building
form, the Port Orchard Museum, the community
library and a private art gallery. Sidney
Hill is highly visible from the western
approach to the city, from the water and the
immediate downtown area.
f
SIDNEY HOTEL-IDLL CLIMB AREA
Sidney Hill
Required Actions ...
ESTABLJSH SIDNEY HILL l>S A HJSTORIC DJSTRIC'T.
ENCXJURAGE VJS ITOR RELATED RESIDENTIAL AND ARIS
AND CRAF'IS l8 El3 TO DEVEI.DP WITHIN THE SIDNEY
HILL AREA, CXJMPLEMENTING EXlST~ RESIDENTIAL
lEES I THE sIDNEY HJTEL, AND THE AR'TS AND
CULTURAL FACILITIES ALREADY IN EXJSTENCE.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Visual Character
Private lands and buildings should be
ITI3.intained and upgraded in a manner which
retains the scale and materials of the
existing older structures.
Due to the prominent location of SIDN~Y HILL
regarding views of the city, private
landowners should enhance existing landscapes
in a manner creating a distinct Sidney Hill
image.
The City of Port Orchard should upgrade, in a
phased and timely manner, Prospect Street,
Bank Street, and Frederick Street with
textured paving ITI3.terials, landscaping, and
lighting fixtures appropriate with the
architectural period of the Sidney Hotel.
This area is prominent both physiographically
and as a key in the local visitor industry.
Hill-Climb and "Fort Hill" Lookout
A wal~ay and stairs connecting SIDNEY HILL (and the
Sidney Hotel) to the waterfront via Bay 3treet and
the South Ki tsap Bank property should be developed
with public and private sector cooperation. A
public right-of-way exists along the bank between
Bay Street and the waterfront, designated as Orchard
Street. The Sidney Hill lookout, historic "Fort
Hill", should be developed by the city on public
right-of-way. The lookout should include the
following:
• a pedestrian platform for viewing,
• an authentic naval cannon for ceremo-
nial use; historically, the cannon from
the Russian ship (Polytofsky) occupied ·
this site and once gave a twenty-one
gun salute to U.S. naval ships entering
the Inlet.
• an information sign indicating
significant places of interest, and
elements comprising the view shed
mountain peaks, battleships) .
location,
physical
(such as
The City of Port Orchard in cooperation with
Chevron, Inc. should develop the SIDNEY HILL walkway
and hill-climb along the northeast boundary of the
31
Chevron pr· 'l JE>rty. Peninsula Tire building owners
could F'-cticipate regarding appropriate wall
graphics and highlight lighting.
This sketch portrays the Sidney Hill-climb
and a rec:y:cled Peninsula Glass building
complete Wl th tnm pa1nt and new sign.
AREA DESCRD?TION
The commercial core of Port uichard extends
along both sides of Bay Street between Cline
Avenue and Seattle Street. The core area or
downtown is bounded on the north by Sinclair
Inlet; on the south by a steep bluff, the
base of which is located immediately to the
rear of the southside Bay Street buildings;
to the east by a point of land at which the
bluff meets the Inlet; and on the west by a
similar condition of topography and Sinclair
Inlet in the vicinity of Pottery Avenue Blvd.
The building pattern is a double loaded
corridor configuration oriented east to west.
Open space consisting of filled tidelands
forms the core area waterfront and is
presently utilized for port and downtown
parking.
I
Downtown
Required Action..
THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SHOULD BE RE-
VITALIZED INTO A HISTORIC MARINE-ORIENTED
CENTER WHICH IS THE FOCUS OF PORT ORCHARD'S
COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES.
o so too t50
,-.. .... ~ ..... -,...~~ .. "1 t
NORTH
; l
l~ l
potentially cdhtributi:rlg hist1rifand.-or architectural buildings
sa
Building Facades
Within the Bay Street shopping district, two
significant building facades have emerged as
the dominant or most apparent architecture
representing Port Orchard's downtown. The
first, the Bay Street facades themselves, are
characterized by a streetscape architecture
with white stucco-faced one-and two-story
wood framed buildings and a dark brown wood
picket style marquee running the length of
Bay Street between Frederick and Harrison
streets. The second facade exists along the
rear of the north Bay Street buildings and is
oriented toward the city and port parking
lots, the passenger ferry terminal and
Sinclair Inlet. These facades are charac-
terized by a mixture of building shapes,
setbacks, materials, colors and styles.
The existing height, width, parapet design,
cornice and fascia elements of over 50% of
the Bay Street buildings reflect 1914 to 1930
period architecture. In order to improve the
overall image of the downtown district,
refurbishing each of these facade types will
be necessary; renovation and remodelling can
be achieved through planned and cost-
effective steps.
This section acknowledges the difficulties
for the individual property owner of
financing and implementing architectural
restoration and rehabilitation of older
buildings. With respect and appreciation for
past rehabilitation efforts, these recommen-
dations seek to define a longer term archi-
tecturally relevant image for Port Orchard
which is achievable through local and private
initiative.
In order to accomplish this,
recommendations are put forth within
short, intermediate, arrl long
scheduling and financing.
the following
the context of
term project
• preferably in groups of two or more
facades, reemphasize the parapet wall
construction of each building, high-
lighting the applicable cornice and
fascia design, original siding material
and window trim details:
• as a short term application, paint the parapet
walls, door and window trim with bright
highlight colors reflecting the proportion and
architectural lines of the original details;
• retain the marquee with the following
alterations:
-paint the marquee a lighter color/
-eliminate vertical pickets
-eliminate knee bracings
The Bay Street buildings, both north and
south side, require substantial exterior code
rehabilitation to improve both their physical
and economic lives. Roofing materials,
siding replacement and painting, window
replacement, foundation repair are all neces-
sary on many of the Bay Street buildings with
particular emphasis on south Bay Street.
The southside Bay Street buildings for the most part
rely on Bay Street for shopper access, advertising,
and service. Continued use of Bay Street for
deliveries and shopper access will continue. The
logistics of delivery hour coordination with store
hours and prime parking demand can be developed to
alleviate significant problems.
The northside Bay Street buildings have delivery and
employee access from the northside, relieving
somewhat the service vehicle pressures from Bay
Street. Design proposals will retain the service
access along the northside and incorporate it into
new development and transit recommendations.
Bay Street North
While a return to a historic image is a
critical recommendation for Bay Street South,
Bay Street North, historically the rear side
of the buildings, requires a different, even
novel, yet related approach. Recommendations
for Bay Street north include:
• regardless of approach, Bay Street
North rehabilitation should be comple-
mentary to the Bay Street South
program. In that context, its design
image should reflect the historical
architectural building elements found
along both sides of Bay Street.
• due to its evolved "rear door" image,
and viewed in terms of its increased
visibility to the waterfront, marina,
cruise ships, etc., a contemporary
approach to a new facade treatment with
expanded shopper protection and conve-
nience is justified. Two options to
provide this contemporary yet histori-
cally reflective design treatment are
demonstrated below:
-A facade marguee, designed to reflect
the parapet walls, windows and materi-
als of Bay Street; many options are
possible and serious design review
should accompany the professionally
designed facade marquee.
-Marquee extensions, designed perpen-
d1cular to the existing facade to
provide covered and semi-enclosed
pedestrian areas connecting the
parking lots to the shop entrances;
these marquee extensions, coupled with
parking lot landscaping, will soften
the chaotic facade treatment along the
water side of Bay Street North.
Both options may occur in tandem or they may
occur as separate options.
Parking Lot Landscaping
Regardless of the architectural treatment of the Bay
Street North buildings, an immediate and high impact
project to revitalize the open parking lot is a
landscape effort which includes trees, shrubs and
ground cover at appropriate locations. Planted in
such a manner to reduce view blockage of the water,
the trees and other landscape elements will provide
an attractive 'from the water' view of Port Orchard.
34
City Center Plaza
As a means of restructuring the interior of the
downtown core in a rnanner which may increase its
economic vitality and physical sense of ~~place .. , a
community plaza or towncenter is recommend&i
immediately north of the Bay Street shops between
Sidney and Harrison Streets. This 'City Center
Plaza' is located on private property and is
designed to max1m1ze the land area between the
former post office building, the liquor store and
the northside Bay Street buildings.
The City Center Plaza becomes a focal point around
which the farmers market, the South Ki tsap Transit
Authority bus-stops, the Bay Street Shops service
road and festival facilities all can be integrated.
The space is designed as a multi-purpose use area
containing both permanent and temporary structures.
The overall objective of the City Center Plaza is to
organize and restructure the open space in that area
for increased economic and community benefits
without sacrificing valuable parking and service
facilities.
View West
FEm1VAL-M.ARKEI' AREA
Criteria for development of the City Center
Plaza include:
• Use
-a farmers market, flexible and informal in
operation;
-flea market, auctions and antique sales;
-festival activities such as music, dancing,
exhibits, displays;
-art shows, fashion shows, outdoor luncheons
and banquets catered by local restaurants;
-performing arts, including regularly
scheduled and visitor-oriented showings. A
local theme play could be developed,
utilizing local history and personalities, as
a special feature for marine related tour
packages.
e Configuration ann structures
·-farmers market booth area is a linear space,
east to west, and has two basic functions: l)
booth area for the farmers market; and, 2)
parking during non-market hours for employee
and merchant use;
-two options are recommended for a
climate protected multiuse structure:
1) a seasonally erected tent or
fabric structure, of quality design,
which is erected in the spring and
dismantled in the fall; for use by
festival activity groups, auctions,
musical groups and could contain space
for temporary as well as permanent
seating areas; 2) a permanent struc-
ture, semi-enclosed for use year
round. This structure should be
designed as a flexible facility, with
wall systems capable of being opened
to the outdoors to expand the
capacity.
CITY CENTER
Transit Options-Impacts
In Apri 1 1983, Ki tsap Transit began operation,
serVHJ(J in part the Port Orchard community. The
impact of the transit authority routes and
facilities on the downtown core district is
substantial.
In order to take advantage of this service, the
following recommendations are included for
incorporation into the downtowr core district plan:
• as an intermediate mea3ure, the plan will
accommodate a turn-around at the northern
terminus of Sidney Avenue and incorporate
landscaping into the turn around facility.
• each of the transit-platform locations and
maneuvering routes through the downtown impact
the CITY CENTER PLAZA -FARMER:> MARKET area
and the Bay Street North service road;
consequently the CITY CENTER PLAZA should
adjust to the transit facilities in a manner
similar to the following options:
A covered pedestrian walkway connecting
the transit stop and the ferry terminal
could greatly enhance passenger comfort
and, possibly, ridership attraction. A
pedestrian viewing platform and passenger
drop-off/pick-up area could accompany the
covered walk along the water's edge.
.AREA DESCRIPTION
The MARINA-WATER EDGE district extends along
the downtown tidelands between Seattle Street
east to Pottery Avenue; and, in a north-south
direction, from the harbor line to the rear
of the nort:.side Bay Street buildings. This
district is characterized by extensive boat
moorage facilities on the water and upland
paved parking areas.
inlet view r grandBtand
I
. ;-,~
bay st walk·-,'-
Required Action . : ·
DEVELOP A MARINE EVENTS YACILf.TY WITH
SPECIAL Ml)Ofi.AGE ON THE W/I,TERFWlNT AS A.
SIGNIFICANT ~'OR'l'-·BOATlNG r\'l'TRAC:TION.
LIMIT DEVELOI:!VJENT WlT!IfN THIS AHEA TO LOW
INTENSITY u~·t::s AND 1--:ESTHICTED VEHICULAR
ACCESS.
r unique shi.ps
Marina
Water Edge
rexhibit
l
Marina
• in the event of future marina expansion by the
Port of Bremerton, allocate Water Street and
Port Street as potential access points for
boaters; Water Street would be a priority
access point.
e accommodate future marina expansion to the
west of the existing marina;
e develop a unique ships moorage facility
between the existing ferry terminal and
Seattle Street; criteria for this facility
should include:
-a floati!lCJ breakwall/visitors dock;
-public access to the floats;
-potential commercial cruise ship docking
area;
-suitable square footage on the floats for
small gatherings of people, i.e. tours.
Waterfront Wa.lkwa.y
The downtown waterfront walkway -should extend alo!lCJ
the entire downtown water edge from Port Street east
to the Seattle Street right-of-way. Characteristics
of this walkway include:
• minimum six foot wide raised wooden walk and
wooden guardrail;
• pedestrian view area at Port Street;
• viewing tower with telescope on the roof of
the former sewage treatment facility;
• expanded boardwalk waiting area at the ferry
dock;
• pedestrian lighting, benches, information
signs and landscaping.
• gangway access points for the proposed unique
ships moorage area and cruise ship dock.
Connections To Waterfront
The waterfront walkway is connected to Bay Street
and adjacent uplands by the following pedestrian way:
• Port Street right-of-way: maintain the
right-of-way as a parking area integrated with
a protected pedestrian walkway; the surface of
the parking area can be pedestrian in
appearance, utilizing textured surfaces. A
pedestrian-only protected viewing area should
be established at the water's edge in
conjunction with the waterfront walkway.
Special features such as wooden bollards,
telescopes, and a flagpole with colorful
windsock would add to the use and attrac-
tiveness of the space.
• the Orchard Street right-of-way should c..'Onnect
the Sidney Ilill-Climb to the waterfront;
l mdscaping and surface treatment will high-
light, identify and separate this walk from
the parking area.
• Sidney Avenue sidewalks should be extended to
the waterfront with greater emphasis placed on
the east side of the street; this side should
be incorporated with the farmers market area
and specialty shop complex (former post office
building) sidewalks. Landscaping again should
be an integral part of the sidewalk extensions
to 'soften' the parking lot impact.
• Harrison Street walkway from Bay Street to the
new service road immediately south of the
liquor store building should be improved.
W1nd sock 1 ·tank
'\ \ \' \:,':,\' ~~-
pedesti'iai) G~?act,~-; '
101!.'1' S'l'
:Marine Events Facility
In order to maximize the use of the waterfront, its
views and recreation potential, a community facility
should be developed on the waterfront capable of
serving a diverse group of uses. Criteria for this
Marine Events Facility should include:
• Uses
-outdoor public seating;
-senior citizens activity area, enclosed;
-connection to the waterfront walkway;
including, ramp and stair access to the upper
Bay Street level;
-multi-purpose room for the performing arts,
civic meetings and exhibits, art shows,
dances and festival activities;
-outdoor exhibit area:the upper level deck at
the Bay Street grade should be utilized for
outdoor and seasonally covered exhibit space,
having good visibility from the waterfront
level and Bay Street.
40
n
• wnfiguration
--the maximtmt heiejht ci the' fac:iltty :;hould not
exceed the height of ihy Street;
-pedestrlan ramps shou.Id be provided to the
upper 1 eve 1 s of the facility from the luwct
parking lot;
-access from Bay Street should be provided to
the upper exhibit and viewing level;
-the building's west and north faces should be
stepped down from the Bay Street level to the
water and parking lot, respectively;
Or i entili .ion
-·uutdcx:n-seat j nq drE'ds or {JL)nd~;;t ands should
west he oriented nortt1 to the t-Ji;ter and
t:owctnJs the parking areca;
-senior cit i ZL'rtS center could
the enst, with access to
walkway and sep:,rated from
parking areas;
be oriented to
waterfront
westerly
the
the
.AREA DEOORIPr!ON
The waterfront district which extends from
the Seattle Street right-of-way to the
Rockwell Street right-of-way is primarily
residential in use. A high bank between Bay
Street and the actual building structures
along the water coupled with a high bluff to
the south of Bay Street create difficult
vehicle and pedestrian access to waterfront
lands. The limitation of buildable lands,
sight lines for oncoming traffic also reduce
the potential for intensive use of this land.
Development Limit
• establish a maximum limit of residential units
for this area based in part on the number of
vehicles such units would generate;
• establish a safe pedestrian walkway along the
full length of the district which is
physically separated from the paved surface of
Bay Street and its shoulders;
• maintain existing landscaping materials,
particularly large trees, to buffer
residential development from Bay Street
traffic noise; traffic noise will remain a
problem for this area and can not be
completely alleviated through landscaping.
• future long term use of this area offers the
following potential:
-open space community oriented, waterfront
passive park facilities;
-continued low density residential development.
Downtown
East Entry
42
T ll i ~-. • J i •, t ~ 1 '· · '· . tend:~ :· Lll!ii h,.: kwe ll Street to
P.!ackJ<Y:k Ci•''· bef.l.;•,•en Bc:y Street and the
waterfrunt. ! r is rhcnacter1zed by general
commercial c:nd automobile dealerships, with
smaller commercial and residential structures
surrounded by vacant land. Vehicular access
is from Bay Street into adjacent parking
areas. Service access for the small commer-
cial plaza is on the waterfront side, and on
the Blackjack Creek side for Howe Motors.
Vehicular storage, both for parking purposes
and inventory stockpiles is a dominant fea-
ture of the district.
Land for future development exists along. the
waterfront immediately east of Rockwell Street.
Waterfront Walkway
Private landowners should cooperatively develop a
segment of the waterfront walkway recommended to
connect clowntown to West Bay and beyond. Design
recommendations include:
o a waterfront walkway, emphasizing waterfront
access;
o low screening of service and storage related
bu.ilding and site functions from the
waterfront and walkway.
TRAIL
Highway
Commercial
Required Action ...
IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ADJACENT PARKING WITH
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING TREATMENT.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE
MONIES OR LAND FOR THE WATERFRONT TRAIL.
Landscape
In order to 1mprove the attractiveness of this area
while retaining visual access from Bay Street to the
automobile dealership and commercial plaza, the plan
recommends public and private joint landscape
efforts of the Bay Street right-of-way with street
trees. Private property owners should provide
landscaping around and within parking areas,
particularly along Blackjack Creek and the
waterfront.
AREA D]8]R[piTQN
The WEST BAY DISTRICT is defined by Blackjack
Creek, Bay Avenue and Sinclair Inlet. The
area historically has been developed on
filled tidelands at the mouth of Blackjack
Creek. Dominating the district is the West
Bay Shopping Plaza containing small shops, a
drug store and a restaurant. Servlce access
for the complex is on the Sinclair Inlet
side. A parking lot and bank facility
complete the use of the land. The street
intersection to the south of the complex is a
major crossroads problem of the commercial
core compounded by a narrow bridge across the
creek. Both the West Bay Shopping Plaza on
the east side of the creek and Howe Motors to
the west utilize Blackjack Creek right-of-
way.
'-y-1 j\
-'1-.-r' :: ),1
{..,.. :1'\··"'" \
-''('\ !.-y.!·-,0=<--'
WestBay
Required Action ...
IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ADJACENT PARKING WITH
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING TREATMENT.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE
MONIES OR LAND FOR THE WATERFRONT TRAIL.
-l
Wl'm' BAY AERIAL
44
Blackjack Creek
Blackjn.c·k C'r ('•'V i'ltJ .. , 1f 1 wo lli.Jjr)r dt-dinarJC:' ravi.l't:\'
in the projt·(·t <1 !'1r i)Jt-11pldnd LJutf r:trea i,11r
city. The cu.-el'. j,, a ,_;ignificant fish habitat cJl''il,
providing spawrJiWJ ;ueas for salmon .md trotlt. ln
addition to 1ts ecolcxjicCJl value, the creek offer£,
an attractive community «menity <:unong the
conunercial land use activity surrounding it. The
creek is a strong visual connection between upland
neighborhocds and Sinclair Inlet, making the creek a
community wide asset as a waterfront attraction and
special feature.
Pecommendat ions for the creek are as follows:
e improve and enhance the water quality of
I3lackjack Creek to a level satisfactory with
its fish habitat function and State of
Washington standards;
e maintain and enhance the creek corridor as il
natural and passive open space area;
• abutting uses should divert parking lot run
off and other contaminants away from the creek
drainage;
• landscape buffers should be planted between
the creek corridor and abutting uses;
•
,, WdJ ltway should be developed along
b\Jt !l sides of Blackjack Creek which
c,JJJ!lec; L:,; Bay Street to the water front
walkway;
a fX'dest r ian bridge should be
the creek to provide a
crossover.
constructed over
safe, attractive
Viewing Shelter
A v1ewing shelter, constructed out over the water
along the waterfront walkway, would provide an
excellent and protected viewpoint of the Inlet and
the naval shipyard. In addition, it would provide
an interim rest stop for walkers, particularly the
elder-ly, walking from the Veterans Home to downtown.
Waterfront WaJ..kwa.y
A buffered amJ screened waterfront walkway should rR
developed nlong the waters edge from Blackjnck Creek
east to Bay Avenue. The walkway shoulcl be screened
and landscaped and lhe existing seeded areas should
be ex:pandc'Cl to create a passive, neighborhcxx:l
oriented small scale waterfront park. New trees
should be added to existing trees to establish a
natural canopy along the water. No significant view
blockage would occur.
The pedestrian walkway system
and upper neighborhcxx:ls would
the waterfront.
from the high sch=l
then be connected to
46
3 THE NEXT STEP ...
STRATEGY
&
IM.PLEM.El\TTATION
I
~
I I
~ ~ .... f ~
~
48
No list of project improvements, policy
recommendations, budgeted i terns, or program
approaches will automatically create results.
The recommended projects can only proceed
with community support, downtown business
initiative, private investment, and City
financial assistance, support, and leader-
ship. The City must know how these projects
will become real and the strategy must in-
clude how the City will organize itself for
action and how the projects will be financed.
ORGANIZATION
It was noted during the early planning stages
of this effort that the business community
was composed of many individuals with strong
commitment to the downtown and with a strong
sense of civic pride. Several informal
committees have existed in recent years that
have accomplished the job when needed, on
special events, particular projects, and
problems that would develop at random.
However, specific organization is lacking for
the comprehensive improvement of the business
district and waterfront, and the City Council
requires representation or involvement in the
informal groups that do exist. Things hap-
pen, and they do happen, but on an ad hoc
basis. The nature of the projects being
proposed in this document requires a continu-
ing and sustained City and business combined
effort if results are to be achieved.
There are three basic approaches that could
be used to insure that the necessary leader-
ship and cooperation is maintained, involving
both the City and the business community. Of
the three approaches, no one in and of itself
will guarantee successi however, one par-
ticular approach would strengthen the com-
nunication and continuity so necessary for
implementation. Each approach should be
lssessed and understood by the community.
rhey are:
)PTION A:
:omm1 ttee
Voluntary Downtown Improvement
rnder this approach, those individuals most
nterested in a particular project or
'rejects would organize themselves on a
oluntary basis and take responsibility for
ettinq the job done. The informal nature
and high degree of personal commitment that
typically accompanies this approach can lead
to prompt results, as evidenced by the vari-
ous special event programs that now occur in
Port Orchard. On the other hand, the long-
term effectiveness of this approach seems to
be limited by the energy levels of the mem-
bership of the committees and the difficulty
in maintaining a committee structure. As a
volunteer effort, it is not unusual to find
that individual interest ebbs and flows
making continuity difficult. In addition:
more expensive and complex issues can remain
neglected. Communication and coordination
can be hampered because it is never certain
exactly who is responsible for what, and who
is involved in a particular project.
Volunteers can and should do a substantial
part of the proposed program, and their use
s~o~ld be further encouraged. However, the
ll.m1 ts of such efforts should also be
recognized.
OPTION B: Downtown Development Task Force
Under this option, a task force would be
established by the Mayor with recommendations
on appointments coming from the City Council,
the Chamber of commerce, and the downtown
business community, particularly the informal
groups now operating. working in conjunction
with the Planning Commission, the task force
would be responsible for recommending priori-
ties and policies of the city Council, as
well as taking an active role in developing
programs for implementation.
Such a task force would consist of both
property owners and local business operators,
as well as representatives from local busi-
ness, civic groups, the Port, and service
clubs. The chairperson of this group is of
particular importance, and ideally should be
an individual with unlimited drive and com-
mitment, and the ability to talk and listen
effectively to a wide range of interests and
perceptions in the community.
Given the substantial amount ot personal t1me
and effort that would be required, it is
usually recommended that a professional staff
person be assigned to work with the task
force. This would insure not only that cost
and attention would be directed toward the
improvement program, but also that necessary
technical information and support would be
ava1lable to the task force.
The staff person would be responsible for a
wide range of activities, including: acting
as secretary to the task force; assisting
local businesses and merchants in promoting
activities; planning, developing, designing,
and implementing redevelopment projects; and
researching and securing local, state, and
federal manpower and financial resources.
This staff person can be obtained by adding
to the assignments of an ~xisting City staff
person, such as the City Public Works Super-
visor; adding a new staff person to handle
these and other. planning and development
actions; or securing professional services
under contract from individuals or firms with
experience in downtown redevelopment plan-
ning, design, and management.
The task force approach is usually effective
in the beginning phases of the program when
extensive involvement is needed. Because of
its wide membership, it can be somewhat
cumbersome in implementation phases of a
program.
OPTION C: Port Orchard Downtown Development
Comrnl.SSlOn
Under this approach, the responsibility for
initiating and sustaining improvement efforts
is a combined one of the property owners,
business operators, the Port, and the City.
Promotional and operational expenses, staff
or management assistance, and .project
financing is derived from bus1.nesses,
property owners, and the city governrn~nt.
The City government is not only suppo:r;t~ ve,
with leadership coming from elected off1.c1als
and the staff, but provides financial assis-
tance by setting up the mech~nisms necessarr,
such as local improvement d1.str1.cts or bu~l
ness and improvement assessments, and serv1.ng
as a conduit for state and federal funds
directed towards the downtown. Of course,
strong leadership and overall direction must
come from the business community. In
essence, the responsibility and lead~rs~ip
for determining priorities, establ1.sh1.ng
policies, and financing and implementin9 the
programs clearly rests with both the pr1vate
and public sectors.
This approach differs only in degree from the
approach discussed in Option 2. It is a more
formal arrangement, with a legal structure 1n
place with specific purposes and mandates.
Because of thls, it is able to receive funds
and can direct management aspects of the
program. It differs only slightly from a
private corporation in its powers and abili-
ties and, of course, would be set up as a
nonprofit entity. This more formal body
would have a high profile, be task oriented,
and would work closely with the City and the
Port. This body is the recommended approach
for action.
A plan is no better than the ultimate
management of its direction, and the imple-
mentation of its recommendations. Management
of a plan does not just happen, but occurs on
a regular basis by an individual or individ-
uals whose responsibilites are clear. If the
City and business community pursue the third
organizational approach recommended, it is
important that individuals from the staff and
the elected body of the City, as well as the
leadership of the commission or committee,
closely coordinate activities.
In addition, professional services may also
be required as part of the project team to
manage the proposed projects. Coordination
of the various state, federal, and local
financial resources is a must. The City
should develop an improvement program budget
for one particular project only after con-
sidering budgets and financial resources for
all the projects that are part of the total
redevelopment program. Scheduling, dollar
availability, appropriate use of a particular
funding source, and difficulty in obtaining
the funds and financial management all must
be considered in preparing the downtown
capital improvement program. It is recom-
mended that a management team emerge from
representatives of the commission, the city,
and whatever professional services need to be
retained by the City for the implementation
of this program.
Plans, if they are to be realized, cost
money. While many things can be done by
volunteer effort, and the business community
must reach into its pockets for its own
reinvestment of its facilities, public
financing or the use of public financing
mechanisms must be explored and achieved if
many of the recommendations in this program
are to become fact. Financing mechanisms
00
ava1lable to assist the business people and
the city government in revitalizing the
::ommercial and waterfront district must be
explored and utilized.
What follows is a brief description of those
local, state, and federal sources currently
available that may help achieve this goal.
While federal resources are becoming in-
creasingly scarce, the City should assume
that there is help to be achieved in this
area. It is true that private development
financing primarily must come from private
investment or entrepreneurial resources,
while public improvements will increasingly
derive from assessment or taxation devices
with assistance from the federal and state
governments. But public financial assistance
is available; and, in many cases, can be a
significant aspect of an improvement program.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
The purpose of this section is to describe
the various funding tools that are available
to the City to improve the downtown com-
munity. This section will describe only the
programs that are available and practical in
the context of the City of Port Orchard's
Improvement Program.
The section is intended as a summary only.
Publio Seotor Project Component
Economic Development Administration, Public
Works Ass1stance Program:
Many communities within an economic develop-
ment district are eligible to participate in
the Economic Development Administration
Public Works Assistance Programs and other
EDA funding. Most of these programs direct
funding towards such projects as:
A
B
Making land suitable for industrial or
commercial use, or providing utilities,
access, and site preparation.
Building facilities and providing equip-
ment for job training programs.
c Improving public facilities at airports
and harbors.
D Providing a very poor community with . a
basic infrastructure that 1s a prerequl-
site to initiating or stimulating economic
development.
51
E Renovating inner city buildings for
special development purposes.
F Building or improving publicly-owned
recreational facilities to build up the
area's tourism.
G Improving the appearance of efficiency of
public facilities in run-down, congested
areas.
These types of projects are evaluated by the
amount and quality of the benefits that can
be expected from the federal investment. In
m~ny cases, Economic Development Administra-
tl.on funds can be used as a mechanism for
improving the vitality and competitiveness of
the business district. However, it must be
noted that a commercial or waterfront project
may have a lower degree of profitability for
funding than an industrial project. The
Economic Development Administration program
may be used to construct streets, sewers,
wat~r. .1 ines,. and other necessary public
fac1l1t1es d1rected towards improving eco-
nomic.development opportunities. The program
has flnanced downtown and waterfront improve-
ment programs in other communities around the
state and the nation. While the Economic
Development Administration has been slated
for elimination in recent years by the
national government and its future is uncer-
tain, it does manage each year to receive a
budget, and continue to engage in funding
development improvement programs.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation:
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department
of the Interior, now referred to as Heritage
. Conservation and Recreation Services (HCRS)
is an available resource for various elements
of the proposed program for Port Orchard.
Small parks, pedestrian amenities, trails,
and other such i terns can be assisted on a
50/50 matching basis. The availability of
funds should be pursued with the State of
Washington, as in most cases the State of
Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation manages and disburses the funds.
The City should have an improved parks and
recreation plan on file with the State Inter-
agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, and
this document should be submitted to them for
its inclusion within approvable projects in
the City of Port Orchard. Recent projects
funded by the Interagency Committee for
Outdoor Recreation include waterfront
improvements, riverfront parks, swimminq
pools, bike paths, play fields, trail sys-
tems, and other general parks and recreation
improvements.
Private Sector Project Component
Small Business Administration 7A Loan Guaran-
tee Program:
The Small Business Administration's 7A Loan
Guarantee Program can provide assistance to
small businesses in obtaining financing in
capital, fixed asset acquisition (including
equipment, land, and buildings), and lease-
hold improvements. Working capital includes
acquisition of inventory, financing receiva-
bles, and reducing trade debt. The SBA 7A
Program guarantees up to 90% of a loan made
by a commercial lending institution. The
business must contribute some equity, the
amount varying with the project and lender's
requirements.
For-profit businesses, particularly those who
are unable to obtain conventional financing,
can receive this loan guarantee assistance.
A small business, for this purpose, is
defined as a retail, service, and construc-
tion business whose sales do not exceed
$2,000,000; a wholesale industry whose sales
do not exceed $9.15 million; or a manufac-
turing industry whose employees do not exceed
250 people.
The program allows real estate loans of up to
25 years and working capital loans of up to 7
years. The rate for an SBA 7A guaranteed
loan may not exceed the prime rate by more
than 2.75%. Loans may be for either a fixed
or variable rate. Collateral may include
personal assets; mortgages on co~ercial
land, buildings, or equipment; or ass~gnment
of receivables.
Small Business Administration 503 Loan Pro-
gram:
The SBA 503 Loan Program is a fixed asset
financing mechanism which offers small busi-
nesses fixed interest loans at below market
rates. The purpose of the program is to
stimulate local investment, and to create new
or save existing jobs. Loan proceeds can be
used for building construction or acquisition
and rehabilitation, leasehold improvements,
and machinery and equipment. Not more than
5% of the total project cost can be financed
by ~he SBA, the maximum being $500,000. The
bus~n~ss ~ust provide a minimum of 10% equity
contr~but~on, and ~ private financing source,
usually a convent~onal lender, provides the
remaining funds.
The program is available to small businesses
planning an expansion or relocation. The SBA
size criteria for a small business in this
instance is broad: Any business qualifies
whose net worth is less than $6,000,000 and
whose profits after taxes are under
$2 1 000, 000 for the previous two years.
Businesses with a three-year track record are
desirable 1 but not mandatory. There are no
limitations on the personal net worth of the
business owners. The 503 Program is limited
to owners/users; developers do not qualify
for loans under this program.
The 503 Program is one which involves the SBA
and a private lending source. The private
lending s?urce. gen~rally is a bank, although
seller f~nanc~ng 1s an option. The rate
ch<;trged on the private loan is set by the
pr1vate lender and may be fixed, variable, or
floating. The term is set by the lender 1 subject to a ten-year minimum.
The SBA loan is subordinated to the private
loan and is offered at an interest rate of
.625% over the U.S. Treasury bond rate. The
rate fluctuates with the market and is set
once a month for loans that are closed in
that month. When a loan is closed, the rate
is fixed and remains constant over the life
of the loan. The loan's term is tied to the
life of the asset and is either 15, 20, or 25
years.
Internal Revenue Service:
The Internal Revenue Service is identified as
a resource in preparing funding strategies
available for downtown programs because of
specific portions of IRS law that provide
investment incentives. Specifically, invest-
ment tax credits (ITC's) help stimulate the
investment decisions regarding rehabilitation
of commercial and rental property structures.
A 10% investment tax credit is provided for
rehabilitation expenditures for all types of
businesses and productive buildings. Eligi-
ble buildings include factories, warehouses,
hotels, and retail and wholesale stores.
Only the rehabilitation expenditures. not the
acquisition costs, are eligible and, if more
than 25% of exterior walls are replaced, the
expenditures will not qualify. In addition,
the building must have been in use for at
least 20 years and the cost must be incurred
at least 20 years after the last rehabilita-
tion was completed. The credit is available
for qualified expenditures incurred after
October 31, 1978.
In addition, the Act amends the Internal
Revenue Code to make it clear that expendi-
tures with respect to which the five-year
amortization is elected under Section 191
(Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Struc-
tures) will be recaptured in accordance with
the provisions applicable to Section 1250
property (real property), rather than provi-
sions applicable to Section 1245 property
(personal property). This means that only
depreciation in excess of straight-line
depreciation is recaptured. The Act, how-
ever, makes such excess depreciation a tax
reference i tern. Further, the Act makes it
clear that long-term leases of historic
structures may claim the five-year amorti-
zation, if they incur rehabilitation expenses
and comply with various technical aspects of
the historic structure definition. These
elements of investment tax credits and
Revenue Act provisions present available
resources and positive cash-flow benefits to
businesspersons involved in rehabilitation or
improvements of existing structures. These
elements of the Revenue Code deserve atten-
tion and research by businesspeople in the
community and their particular accountants
and auditors.
Locally Initiated Mechanisms
Parking and Business Improvement Areas (SBIA):
In order to aid economic development and to
facilitate business cooperation, Washington
State law (RCW 35. 87A) authorizes all coun-
ties and all incorporated cities and towns to
establish Parking and Business Improvement
Areas for the following purposes:
A The acquisition, construction, or mainte-
nance of parking facilities for the
benefit of the area.
B The decoration of any public place in the
area.
C Promotion of public events which are to
take place in public places in the area.
53
D Furnishing of music in any public place in
the area.
E Providing professional management, plan-
nlng, . and promotion for the area,
1ncl~d1ng the management and promotion of
reta1l trade activities in the area.
In order to assist in the cost of achieving
these purposes, cities are authorized to levy
spec1al assessments on all businesses within
the . area spec~fically benefitted by the
park1n~ and .bus1ness improvement assessment.
The .c~ty, 1n accordance with the special
~rov1s1ons of the statute authority, may
1ssue and sell revenue bonds for some of the
c;:osts involved in the parking and business
1mprovement area.
To initiate such a process in the establish-
ment of an area, a petition must contain the
following:
1 A description of the boundaries of the
proposed area;
2 The proposed uses and projects to which
proposed special assessments and revenues
shall be put, and the total estimated cost
thereof;
3 The estimated rate of levy of special
assessments with a proposed breakdown by
class of business and the assessment
classification to be used.
The initiating petition shall also contain
the signatures of persons who operate busi-
nesses in the proposed area which will pay
50% of the proposed special assessments.
The city, after receiving a valid initiation
petition or after passage of an initiation
resolution, shall adopt a resolution of
intention to establish such an area. The
resolution shall state the time and place of
hearings to be held by legislative authority
to consider establishment of an area. It
shall state all the information contained in
the initiation petition or initiating resolu-
tion regarding boundaries, projects and uses,
and estimated rates of assessment.
In establishing the special assessments, the
law has been amended to clarify alternatives
available to the program. The legislative
authority establishing such assessments may
make a reasonable classification of busi-
nesses, giving consideration to various
factors such as business and occupation taxes
imposed, square footage of the businesses,
number of employees, gross sales, or other
reasonable factors relating to the benefit
received, including the degree of benefit
received from parking.
The bill also elaborated on the purposes
served by the previous amendments and
refined, without limiting the scope of,
permissible purposes to oe served by the
business improvement area assessment
district. Specifically, it added for clari-
fication that assessments could aid general
economic development and facilitate merchant
and business cooperation which assists trade
through "providing professional management,
planning, and promotion of the area, in-
cluding the management and promotion of
retail trade activities in the area."
The legislative authority of each city shall
have sole discretion as to how the revenue
derived from the special assessment is to be
used within the scope of that purpose.
However, the legislative authority can also
a!)point existing advisory boards or commis-
Slons to make recommendations as to issues,
or the legislative authority, such as the
Cl. ty of Port Orchard, could create a new
advisory board or commission for such
purposes.
Local Improvement Districts:
Local Improvement Districts are widely used
in the State of Washington to provide for
public l.mprovements, particularly streets,
sewers, and water programs. A local improve-
ment district is formed and assessments are
applied to the property owners for the cost
of the improvements, based on the amount of
benefits they receive from the improvements.
Often these improvements are done on a
footage basis; i.e., the amount of property
frontage in the case of the street improve-
ment, or the direct cost of the water lines
or sewer lines that serve the project on a
pro rata basis.
In complex situations, often several assess-
ment roles are developed based on a formula
that attempts to determine a particular
property's benefit from the public improve-
ment. One example is the construction of
p~rking lots, the cost of those lots, and the
d1stance of the parking lots from individual
property and the nature of the property being
served.
A lo.cal improvement district was formed to
prov1~e the initial marquee improvement in
the C1 ty of Port Orchard over a dozen years
~go: .A special assessment was added to each
1nd1~1dual's tax liability in an amount
rang1ng from $200 . to. $400 annually for the
co~struct1on of thls 1mprovement to visually
un1fy the downtown businesses on the main
thoroug~far~. As this initial local improve-
ment d1.str1ct to al.d the downtown is near
completion in the payment of the initial
rev~nue obligation, .the property owners may
a9a1n .want to cons1der this technique in
flnanc1ng some of the improvements in the
area.
Chapter 35.43 in the Revised Code of
Washington establishes authority for local
improvement districts and the requirements
for initiating the above proceedings.
Authority generally includes the construc-
tion, reconstruction, repair, or renewed
landscaping relative to the following:
1 Alleys, avenues, boulevards, lanes, park
drives, parkways, public places, public
squares, public streets, their grading,
regrading, planking, replanking, paving,
repaving, macadamizing, remacadamizing,
graveling, regraveling, piling, repiling,
capping, recapping, or other improvements;
if. the management and control of park
dr1ves, parkways, and boulevards is vested
in a board of park commissioners, the
plans and specifications for the improve-
ment must be approved by the park commis-
sioners before their adoption;
2 Auxiliary water systems;
3 Auditoriums, field houses, gymnasiums,
swimming pools, or other recreation or
playground facilities or structures;
4 Bridges, culverts,
approaches thereto;
and trestles
5 Bulkheads and retaining walls;
6 Dikes and embankments;
and
7 Drains, sewers, and sewer appurtenances
which as to trunk sewers shall include as
nearly as possible all the territory which
can be drained through the trunk sewer and
subsewers connected thereto;
8 Escalators or moving sidewalks, together
with the expense of operation and main-
tenance;
54
9 Parks and playgrounds;
10 Sidewalks, curbing, and crosswalks;
11 Street lighting systems, together with the
expense of furnishing electrical energy,
ma1ntenance, and operation;
12 Underground utilities, transmission lines;
13 Water mains, hydrants, and appurtenances
~h1ch as to trunk water mains shall
1ncl~de as nearly as possible all the
terr1tory 1n the zone or district to which
water ma:y be distributed from the trunk
l~ne .ma1~s through lateral service and
d1str1but1on mains and services;
14 Fences, culverts, siphons, or coverings or
any other feasible safeguards along, in
place of, or over open canals or ditches
to protect the public from hazards
thereof;
15 Road beds, trackage, signalization,
storage facilities for rolling stock,
overhead an~ underground wiring, and any
other stat1onary equipment reasonably
necessary for the operation of electrified
public streetcar lines.
S~ction 35.43. 0~0 specifies action on peti-
tlon o~ resolut1on for such an ordinance to
establ1sh an LID. A local improvement may be
ordered on~y by an ordinance of the City or
Town Counc1l, pursuant to either resolution
or petition therefor. The ordinance must
re~ei~e the affirmative vote of at least the
ma]or1ty of the members of the Council.
Charte~s of cities of the first class may
prescr1be further limitations. In cities and
towns other than cities of the first class
the ordinance must receive the affirmativ~
vote of at least two-thirds of the members of
th~ Co~ncil if,, prior to its passage, written
ob] ect1ons to 1 ts enactments are filed with
the City Clerk by or on behalf of the owners
?f the majority of the linear frontage of the
1mprovement and of the area within limits of
the proposed improvement district.
STATE FINANCI:AL ASSrST.ANOE
State Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, Commun1ty Econom1c Rev1tal1za-
The Commu~i ty Economic Revitalization Board
ffi
1s an independent commission established by
the State of Washington legislature, and
served by the staff of the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development. It
prov1de~ low interest loans through muni-
Clpall t1es for public improvements necessary
to stimulate private investment and job
creat1on. Establ1shed by the legislature in
1982 as the successor to the Economic
Assistance Authority, the Board is able to
~espond fairly rapidly in providing low
1nt~rest loans relating to specific project
act1ons.
~uidelines for evaluating proposed projects
~ncl ude number of short-term and long-term
JObs; related public and private investment;
econom~c conditions and unemployment in the
comm~n1ty; project feasibility; ability of
appllcant to repay loan; and value to local
economically disadvantaged groups. The City
is the official applicant, although the Port
could qualify.
Washington State Community Development Block
Grant Program:
The Washington State Community Development
Block Grant Program assists in the develop-
ment and maintenance of strong, independent
comm~ni ties by px;oviding funding for local
hou~1~g~ econom1c development, public
fac1l~t1es, and comprehensive projects which
benef1t low and moderate income citizens,
eliminate or prevent slums and blight, or
resolve problems which pose an immediate
threat to public health and safety.
The State of Washington's Community Develop-
ment Block Grant Program is a successor to
the Depart~ent of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment's Entl tlement and Small City Conununi ty
Development Program, itself a successor to
the Urba.n Redevelopment Program launched by
the Hous1ng Act of 1949. Activities assisted
include:
1 Acquisition of property;
2 Construction, reconstruction, installation
of public works facilities and cited other
improvements;
3 Code enforcement in deterioriating areas;
4 Clearance, demolition, removal, and
rehabilitation of building improvements,
including interim assistance and financing
public or private acquisition for public
rehabilitation;
5 Rehabilitation of privately owned proper-
ties, including renovation of closed
school buildings.
6 Special projects directed to the removal
of material and architectural barriers
which restrict the mobility and accessi-
bility of elderly and handicapped persons;
7 Disposition of any real property acquired
pursuant to the program;
8 Provisions of public services;
9 Payment of nonfederal shares required in
connection with other federal grant and
aid programs undertaken as part of
activities assisted under this title;
10 Activities which are carried out by public
or private nonprofit entities, including
acquisition of real property; acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, rehabili-
tation, or installation of public
facilities, site improvements, and
utilities, and commercial or industrial
buildings or structures and other comme.r-
cial or industrial property improvements
and planning;
11 Grants to neighborhood based nonprofit
organizations, local development cor-
porations, or entities organized under
Section 3010 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 to carry out a
neighborhood revitalization or community
economic development or energy conser-
vation project in furtherance of the
objectives of Section lOlC; and
12 Provisions of assistance to private,
for-profit entities when the assistance is
necessary or appropriate to carry out an
economic development project.
Applications can be either single purpose or
comprehensive ones which include a variety of
activities whose sum is greater than the
impacts of the individual activities, and can
be single or multi-year in nature. Funding
is on an annualized basis, with the next
funding cycle to include the receipt of
applications October 1 of 1983.
Applicants are evaluated on the basis of City
need, project strategy, project results, and
benefit to low and moderate income individ-
uals. The City is the applicant for any
project.
The attached financing plan and suggested
program identifies particular financial
strategy approaches to the recommended
projects.
All the above program opportunities are
appropriate for specific portions of the
downtown program. Each must be analyzed in
context of the entire plan.
Econcmic Reoovery Tax Act of 1981
This act (Public Law 97-34) creates significant new
incentives to encourage the preservation and reuse of
historic buildings. The law basically repeals the
existing preservation tax incentives and replaces them
with a 25 percent investrrent tax credit. It also
replaces the traditional system of depreciating real
property over its useful life with an accelerated cost
recovery system allowing investrrents to be recovered in
15 years. The new law also repeals the denolition
provision enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1976 that
denied accelerated depreciation for a building
constructed on the site of a demolished historic
building. Federal incare tax deductions are denied
for demolition costs or losses associated with historic
buildings.
Administration.
o National Park Service (NPS)
o U.S. Depart:rrent of the Interior
o Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
o U.S. Departrrent of Treasury
Highlights.
o Only "qualified" rehabilitation is eligible and
qualification should be detemined prior to
camencing work;
o effective 1 January 1982;
o tax credits are as follCJ.Ys:
15% for structures at least 30 years old;
20% for structures at least 40 years old;
25% for certified historic structures;
o conditions for qualifications:
structure has been substantially rehabilitated;
structure was in use prior to beginning the
rehabilitation;
the building retains at least 75% of the
existing external walls;
The I'K: (Inves1:.nent Tax Credit) is deducted fran
the arrount of taxes CJ.Yed in contrast to a deduc-
tion, which reduces a taxpayer's incorre subject to
taxation;
o Eligibility for I'OC includes the follCJ.Ying:
I'K: is available to both depreciably non-resi-
dential and residential buildings;
significant incentives exist for rental housing
in historic buildings;
o.vner-occupied taxpayer's certified building can
take I'K: for incane-producing part of building;
the rehabilitation expenditures must exceed the
great of 1) the taxpayer's cost of the building
plus capital improvements less depreciation
(adjusted basis in property); 2) or $5,000,
within a 24-m:mtl1 period;
1 60-rronth period to rreet rehabilitation test
allo.ved when completion is set in stages based
on architectural plans completed before the
rehabilitation b€gins;
in the case of certified historic structures,
the I'K: can be deducted fran taxes wed and, the
entire cost of rehabilitation can be
depreciated. When coupled with the additional
5-percent credit, the tax sav1ngs are substan-
tial.
o Recapture:
if a rehabilitated building is held more than S
years after rehabilitation there is no recapture
of I'K:;
if a rehabilitated building is disposed of less
than one year after going in service, all of rrc
is recapturec.
Years Held % Recaptured
less than 1 yr. 100
1-2 yrs. 80
2-3 yrs. 60
3-4 yrs. 40
4-5 yrs. 20
5 or rrore 0
o Who gets the I'K:?
o.vner (s) of eligilile buildings;
an a.-mer when a building is leased and used by a
tax exempt organization or goverTllOOI'ltal tmit
such as the University of Alaska;
a lessee when lessee incurs costs, the rehabili-
tation is carplete and the remaining term of
lease is not less than 15 years.
o Tax Preference
taxpayer investors in the rehabilitation are not
subject to a minimum tax penalty;
coupled with Straight-line Depreciation, I'K: for
qualified rehabilitation eliminates recapture
program associated with earlier tax incentives;
EXAMPLE 1: OFFICE & APARIMENI' BUilDING
Acquisition Cost
Land
Building
$ 40,000
110,000
Rehabilitation expenses
1st year cost recovery
($110,000 + $125,000) -15 years
1983 tax liability (based on adjusted
gross income over cost
recovery & other deductions)
25 percent I'JX:
$125,000 x 25 percent
ITC limit in 1983
$30,000 -$25,000 = $5,000.
$25,000 plus (90 percent x
5,000) = 29,500
I'JX: carried back to 1980
$31,250 -$29,500
Sales after 4 years
Cost recovery deductions over
4 years ($15,667 x 4 years)
Adjusted basis of building + land
($150,000 + $125,000) -$62,668
Net profit for tax purposes
$350,000 -$212,332
Capital gains tax at 20 percent
$137,668 x 20 percent
Taxes paid due to recapture of I'JX:
$31,250 x 20 percent
$150,000
125,000
15,667
30,000
31,250
29,500
1,750
350,000
62,668
212,332
137,668
27,534
6,250
Source: Preservation News suwlerent; Noverrber I 1981 •
EXAMPLE 2: HIGHRISE BUilDING
Acqui.si tion Cost
Land
Building
Rehabilitation costs
$600,000
600,000
Limited partners (120 @ $10,000)
Total project costs
1982 I'JX: (Total)
1982 ITC for limited partners
($1.5 million x 25 percent)
x 98 percent
1982 Deduction for easement donation
for limited partners:
$600,000 x 98 percent
Limited partner's tax treat.rrent
I'JX:
$367,500-120
Tax savings due to ITC
Easerent donation deduction
$588,000 -120
Tax savings due to easem:mt
donation: $4,900 x 50 percent
bracket
Total Tax Savings 1st year
$3,063 + ($4,900 x 50 percent)
Reduction in $1,200,000 Basis attributable to
gift of $600,000 easerent
$1,200,000
1,500,000
1,200,000
2,700,000
375,000
367,500
568,000
3,063
4,900
2,450
Adjustment Basis "Before" easerrent gift:
Land $600,000
Buildings 600,000
Adjustmant Basis "After" easem:mt gift:
Land 200,000
Buildings 400,000
Source: Preservation News Supplerrent November, 1981.
Standards for Rehabilitation
In the words of the 1981 law, "consistent with the
histor1c character" of the structure and the district
in which it is located.
(1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide
a canpatible use for a property that requires minimal
alteration of the building, structure or site and its
cnvironrrent, or to use a property for its originally
intended purpose.
(2) The distinguishing original qualities or
character of a building, structure or site and its
environrrent shall not be destroyed. The rerroval or
alteration of any historic material or distinctive
architectural features should be avoided when p::>ssible.
(3) All buildings, structures and sites shall be
recognized as products of their CMn ti.rre. Alterations
that have no historical basis and which seek to create
an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
( 4) Changes that may have taken place in the course
of ti.rre are evidence of the history and development of
a building structure or site and its environrrent.
These change may have acquired significance in their
CMn right, and this significance shall be recognized
and respected.
(5) Distinctive stylistic features or exanples of
skilled craftsmanship that characterize a building,
structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
(6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be
repaired rather than replaced, wherever p::>ssible. In
the event replacerrent is necessary, the new material
should match the material being replaced in canposi-
tion, design, color, texture and other visual
qualities. Repair or replacerrent of missing architec-
tural features should be based on accurate duplication
of features, substantiated by historic, physical or
pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs
or the availability of different architectural elements
fran other buildings or structures.
( 7) The surface cleaning of structures shall be
undertaken with the gentlest rreans p::>ssible. Sand-
blasting and other cleaning rrethods that will damage
the historic building materials shall not be
undertaken.
(8) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect
and preserve archeological resources affected by, or
adjacent to, any project.
(9) contemporary design for alterations and
additions to existing properties shall not be
discouraged when such alterations and additions do not
destroy significant historical, architectural or
cultural material, and such design lS canpatible with
t.'le size, scale, color, material and character of the
property, neighborhood or environrrent.
(10) Wherever possible, new additions or alterations
to structures shall be done in such a manner that if
such additions or alterations were to be removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the
structure would be unirrpaired.
The secretary of the Interior's Standards for Evaluat-
ing Structures within Registered Historic Districts.
The NPS uses the "Standards for Evaluating Structures
within Registered Historic Districts" to determine
whether a structure within a registered historic dis-
trict is of historic significance to the district. The
SHPO also uses these standards to make certification
re~~dations to the NPS.
( 1) A structure contributing to the historic
significance of a district is one which by location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association adds to the district's sense of ti.rre and
place and historical development.
(2) A structure not contributing to the historic
significance of a district is one that detracts fran
the district's sense of ti.rre and place and historical
development; or one where the integrity of the original
design or individual architectural features or spaces
have been irretrievably lost; or one where physical
deterioration and/or structural damage has made it not
reasonably feasible to rehabilitate the building.
(3) Ordinarily structures that have been built
within the past 50 years shall not be considered
eligible unless a strong justification concerning their
historical or architectural rrerit is given or the
historical attributes of the district are considered to
be less than 50 years old.
PORT OF CALL P .ACKAGE
Puget Sound Port of Call Cruise
The potential is significant for an in-sound
commercial cruise ship package which would
make scheduled visits to a number of Puget
Sound waterfront communities.
This section describes the basic concepts and
strategy regarding the nature and packaging
requirements of such a cruise tour.
Objective
Develop a regularly scheduled cruise ship
"bed and breakfast" tour package utilizing
a select number of Puget Sound waterfront
communities as a new economic and cultural
function for those communities.
Concept
1 Establish a Puget Sound
ship(s) which permits
day/one night visits to
ports of call;
route for a cruise
a minimum of one
approximately five
2 Cooperating "bed and breakfast" estab-
lishments within each port will provide
accommodations for the vessel's
passengers;
3 Time will be allotted for day time excur-
sions within each community, providing the
opportunity for shopping, dining and
entertainment.
4 Cultural and local festival activities
will be coordinated with the cruise ship
schedules to .provide a number of the
following:
o Country Western Music Festival
o Fathoms of Fun Festival
o Local drama group's performance ( s)
relative to the local history (short
three-act play depicting humorous
aspects of 1890 Sidney-Port Orchard
life styles)
o Functions sponsored by local merchants
and chamber of commerce
o Other attractive activities.
Interested Cruise Ships
o Virginia V Steamer Foundation
Fishermen's Terminal
Vessel Length: 125 feet
Capacity: 32 5
Mr. Stevenson
( 206) 624-9119
o Harbor Tours
Pier 56
Goodtime I
Vessel Length: 87 feet
Capacity: (460) 350 comfortably
Goodtime II
Capacity: (496) 350 comfortably
Goodtime III
Capacity: (400) 150 comfortably
Lynn or Alice Campbell
(206) 623-1445
o Grayline Tour Wholesaler
Charter, Seattle
Vessel Dimensions: 65 feet long, 25
feet wide, 10 feet draw
Maximum capacity: 250 theatre style
Capable of serving dinners on board,
and coordination with on-shore
activities
Shelly Paganelli
( 206) 343-2013
These groups were interviewed based on the
fact that the vessels do not have on-board
sleeping accommodations.
Potential Route
o Leave Seattle Friday evening
o Cruise Puget sound with possible stops
at:
-Blake Island (salmon bake)
-Gig Harbor
o Dock at Port Orchard on Friday evening
o Utilize Port Orchard's "bed and break-
fast" facilities overnight with planned
activities downtown (performing arts)
o Leave Port Orchard for Poulsbo Saturday
afternoon
o Cruise Sinclair Inlet and the Naval
Shipyard facilities; Dyes Inlet
o Dock at Poulsbo Saturday evening,
staying overnight at the Fiord House
and Manor Fern Inn "bed and breakfast"
facilities and enjoy the bakery and
waterfront park on Sunday morning
o Leave Poulsbo Sunday afternoon
o Cruise Puget Sound Inlets, cruise by
Kingston and Hansville
o Dock at Port Gamble Sunday evening,
stay overnight in the old residences,
tour the building complex and enjoy a
catered dinner; Monday morning would
Include a tour of the mill, now one of
the most advanced computer-laser oper-
ated facilities in the country yet
housed in a National Historic Trust
structure
o Leave Port Gamble Monday afternoon
o Cruise Admiralty Inlet, passing by
Marrowstone Island, Fort Flagler State
Park, Lower Hadlock and Fort Worden
State Park
o Dock at Port Townsend on Monday evening
o Enjoy Port Townsend entertairunent and
dining establishments, stay overnight
at the James House and the Quimper Inn;
tour Port Townsend's historic district
Tuesday
o Leave Port Townsend Tuesday afternoon
o Cruise the Strait of Juan De Fuca along
Whidbey Island north through Deception
Pass and through Saratoga Passage to
Coupeville
o Leave coupeville Wednesday afternoon
and arrive back in Seattle on Wednesday
evening. End of tour.
Although this cruise is hypothetical, it.does
describe the potential of the many and dlver-
sified Puget Sound communities. Port Gamble,
owned by Pope and Talbert, Inc., is presently
studying the town for additional use as a
conference and visitor center. Coupeville is
presently improving their waterfront result-
ing from the same available waterfront
resources and economic needs as Port Orchard.
The potential exists for strong mutually
beneficial coordination between Port Orchard
and these Puget Sound ports-of-call.
The Next Step ... :
1 Establ1sh contact with each community
through the Downtown Association.
2 Form a Puget Sound Port-of-Call Visitors
Committee or Association to deal specifi-
cally with this project.
3 Develop the "bed and breakfast" facili-
ty(s) in Port Orchard.
4 With the Puget Sound Association in place,
with a list of on-shore sleeping facili-
ties and visitor activities outlined and
61
described, as a group contact the cruise
ship companies requesting cons1derat1on,
costs and potential schedules.
5 Contact selected travel agencies from the
communities involved and develop a prac-
tice chartered test run, developing a list
of improvements en :oute each. <;=o~uni ty
could make regarding 1mage, act1v1t1es ~nd
facilities; and have travel agenc1es
develop the package, prices and marketing.
Unique Vessels
Unigue Ship Display and Moorage Facility
The display of historic and/or ur.li9ue ~aval
vessels within a new moorage fac1l1 ty 1s an
important component of the ~arine . Eve~ts
Facility. In order to accompllsh th1s d~s
play and moorage facility, the follow1ng
sponsoring organization requirements and
tasks need to be addressed.
A. Display Items (Navy Vessels)
Two sources of donated 1tems pertinent to
the Port Orchard Waterfront Marine Event
Facility include:
1 Federal Surplus Personal
Donation Programs.
Property
2 Department of the Navy, Naval Sea
Systems Command captured or obsolete
vessels.
FEDERAL SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY DONATION
PROGRAMS
Eligible Recipients
o Publ1c agenc1es including states, their
political subdivisions (such as
cities);
o Nonprofit educational and public health
organizations (including museums and
libraries);
o Nonprofit and Public Programs for the
elderly (organizations receiving ~unds
appropriated under the Older Amer1cans
Act of 1965, the Social Security Act,
or the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964);
o Educational activities of special
interest to the Armed Services (Red
Cross, Scouts, United Service Organi-
zations, Inc., Little League Baseball,
etc.);
o Public airports.
Contact
Wash1ngton Surplus Property Section
6858 South 190th Street
Kent, WA 98031
(206) 872-6446
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS
COMMAND.
Eligible Recipients
o Mun1c1pal corporations
o Soldiers Monument Associations
o An incorporated museum, operated and
maintained for educational purposes
only, whose charter denies it the right
to operate for a profit
o A post of the American Legion
o A local unit of any other recognized
war veterans' association.
Navy Vessel Retuests:
Request for 1n ormation about the donation or
loan of U.S. Navy vessels for use as memori-
als should be directed to:
o Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command,
ATTN: NSEA/CODG, Department of the
Navy, Washington, D.C. 20360. These
donations are covered by Statute 10 u.s.c. 7308 which provides that vessels
concerned must be obsolete or
condemned.
PROCEDURES
Donations of combat equipment for display
are made at no expense to the Government.
The cost of handling, demilitarization,
and transportation must be paid by the
requesting organization. The method of
transportation may be chosen by the re-
ceiving organization if such. choice. is
economically advantageous and 1f the 1tem
does not exceed weight or measurement
limitations established by State Highway
Departments. Donees are required to
comply with Title VI of Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
When a sui table unit of combat equipment
can be made available, the requester is
supplied with the following information:
Description of the specific item, to
include measurements.
Cost for mandatory demilitarization,
which the recipient must pay before the
work will be done by the storing in-
stallation. Demilitarization renders
the equipment completely ineffectual as
a lethal weapon, and makes movable
parts stationary. This process, in the
interest of human safety, is performed
in accordance with specific rules
established for each type of item.
Estimation of the shipping weight, in
order that a recipient may compute
transportation costs.
Description of necessary documentation.
This includes signed copies of "Assur-
ance of Compliance" with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964; copy of
organization charter, a certificate
stating that the property is being
acquired for the donee's use and that
when the property is no longer required
by the donee, disposition instructions
will be requested from the original
donating activity. Requests from
incorporated museums operated and
maintained for educational purposes
only must be accompanied by a certifi-
cation of exemption from taxation under
the Internal Revenue Code, along with a
certification that they are maintained
for educational purposes only.
o The item is reserved for 30 days,
during which time the requester may
reject or accept the item. Acceptance
is indicated by forwarding to the
donating agency the certificates pro-
vided at the time equipment is offered,
properly completed by organization
officers. Rejection is indicated by
letter forwarded prior to the end of
the 30-day reservation period. In the
event a written acceptance or rejection
reply is not received during the 30-day
reservation period, the request for
donation will be cancelled and returned
to the requester.
o If a suitable unit of combat equipment
cannot be made available on receipt of
the application for donation, the
request for donation will remain valid
for a period of 60 days. Exception is
made to requests for donations pro-
cessed by the U.S . Army Armament
Material Readiness Command which will
remain valid for a period of one year.
Those that cannot be nonorea Wlthin
this time frame will be cancelled and
returned to the requester.
o Upon receipt of the above-mentioned
supporting certificates, and upon
payment for handling and demili tari-
zation, shipping orders are prepared to
supply the equipment. When the demili-
tarization has been accomplished, the
i tern will be shipped by rail or truck
transport, as indicated, with all
transportation charges collect.able upon
delivery. If it is intended that the
material be picked up by truck, the
shipping installation will advise the
recipient when the i tern is ready for
pickup.
o Applications for donations of surplus
property submitted by a post (or other
local unit) of recognized veterans'
organizations shall include the written
approval of its National Headquarters.
Special Moorage
B. Moorage Facilities
The Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization
Project recommends the planning and con-
struction of a special moorage facility to
be associated with the activities of the
Marine Events Facility.
The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers is au-
thorized under Section 107 of the River
and Harbors Act of 1960 to provide assis-
tance for the planning and construction of
general navigation features for facilities
which demonstrate, through their use, an
economic benefit to the area and country.
The navigational features eligible for
U.S. Army Corps involvement include:
o Floating breakwaters
o Dredging (for access and entrance
channels).
Overall Criteria
o Pro]ect demonstrates economic benefit
to community;
o Recreational boating;
o Demonstrates a need for expansion of
existing moorage facilities;
o Moorage type includes permanent slips
as well as transient and/or display
moorage;
o Capacl ty 1s at least 100 slips, based
on cost benefit analysis by U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers;
o Sponsoring agency defines the type of
boats, slip length, and slip width.
Contact
Frank Urabeck
Bureau Chief
Navigation and Construction Planning
Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle, WA
(Additional contact: Andy Mayer,
Architect-Planner)
The Next Step ... for the City
o Subm1t a letter to the Bureau Chief,
referencing the discussion between Ron
Kasprisin and Frank Urabeck concerning the
Port Orchard unique ship moorage facility
requesting:
Assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding Section 107 of the
1960 Rivers and Harbor Act.
And, provide information about the
proposed project (number of permanent
slips, length, width, amenities for
floats (benches, fish cleaning areas,
lighting, trash receptacles, informa-
tion signs).
o Set up an appointment between the City of
Port Orchard, the Port of Bremerton and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ar-
range for:
A reconnaissance study to determine
ball park costs including local sponsor
costs;
Schedule for the second phase, more
detailed study. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will conduct a federal
benefit-cost ratio analysis prior to
undertaking the second level detailed
study.
City Of Port Orol::la.ro.: Rooom.rnarldai Projoot P.has:lng And Fi:na.nciaJ. P.la.n
Phase I 1983 -1984
1984
1984
Project Packaging
Detailed Design
Project Construction
This plan recommends that a Port Orchard Development Commission be established to assume significant responsibility
for project development and management.
~esponsibilities:
PR = Private
CITY
PORT
SC = Service Clubs
ST = State
PODC = Port Orchard Development Commission
RES PONS I-ESTIMATED
PROJECT BILITIES COST
1. Walkway (Bay Street) CITY /PODC $13,000
2. DeKalb Street CITY/PORT $20,000
3. Water Street sc $3,000
4. Bay Street CITY/PODC/ $5,000
sc
6. Boardwalk PORT $41,400
7. Waterfront Pavilion PORT/CITY $600,000
7a. Grandstand & Roof PORT/CITY $300,000
POTENTIAL
FINANCING SOURCES
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Interagency Commit tee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Port/Community
Economic Revitali-
zation Board
Economic Development
Administration/
State Community Dev-
elopment Block Grant
Program/Port
Port/Economic
Development
Administration/
State CDBG
AVAILABILITY
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
GENERAL CRITERIA
AND REQUIREMENTS
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works Development,
Jobs, Private
Investment
Public Works, Economic
Development, Jobs,
Private Investment, &
Low & Moderate Income
Public Works, Economic
Development, Jobs,
Private Investment, &
Low & Moderate Income
9. Boardwalk/Guardrails
10. Sidewalk
lOa. Private Trail
11. Sidewalk
11a. Landscaping
12. Boardwalk
l2a. Shelter
13. Bridge
14. Trail
15. Pavement
15a. Structure
15b. Tent
16. New Facade &
Sidewalk
19. City Entry
20. Banners
Phase li
8. New Moorage
17. Hill Climb
CITY/STATE
CITY/PODC
PR
PR
PR
CITY/PODC
CITY/PODC
CITY/PODC
CITY/PODC
PR
PR/CITY /PODC
PR
PR
CITY/SC
sc
1984 -1985
1985
1985
CITY/PORT/
PODC
PR/CITY/
PODC
$6,000 Interagency Annual Basis Recreation
Committee
$1,500 Interagency Annual Basis Recreation
Committee
$9,000 Property Owners/ At Local Budget Constraints
LID Initiative
$10,000 Property Owners/ At Local Budget Constraints
LID Initiative
$2,000 Property Owners/ At Local Budget Constraints
LID Initiative
$21,600 Interagency At Local Budget Constraints
Committee Initiative
$15,000 Federal Revenue At Local Budget Constraints
Sharing Initiative
$28,000 Federal Revenue At Local Budget Constraints
Sharing/Economic Initiative
Development
Administration
$9,000 Interagency Committee Annual Basis Recreation
$100,000 Community Economic Annual Basis Jobs, .Private
Revitalization Board Investment
$80,000 Community Economic Annual Basis Jobs, Private
Revitalization Board Investment
$25,000 Community Economic Annual Basis Jobs, Private
Revitalization Board Investment
$60,000 Local Improvement At Local Jobs, Private
District Initiative Investment
$8,000 Federal Revenue Annual Budget Constraints
Sharing/City Funds Local Initiative
$3,000 Merchants Local Initiative
Project Packaging
Detailed Design
Project Construction
$144,000 Port Annual Basis Budget Constraints
$12,500 Interagency Committee Annual Basis Recreation
21. New Light PR/CITY/ $8,000 City General or Annual Budget Constraints
Standards PODC Street Funds Local Initiative
22. Orchard Street PR/CITY/ $3,500 City General or Annual Budget Constraints
Walkway PODC Street Funds Local Initiative
23. Frederick Street PR/CITY/ $3,500 City General or Annual Budget Constraints
Walkway PORT/PODC Street Funds Local Initiative
24. Sidney Street PR/CITY/ $3,500 City General or Annual Budget Constraints
Walkway PORT/PODC Street Funds Local Initiative
25. Harrison Street PR/CITY/ $3,500 City General or Annual Budget Constraints
Walkway PORT/PODC Street Funds Local Initiative
26. "Fort Hill" Lookout CITY/PODC $3,000 Interagency Committee Annual Basis Recreation
Phasem 1985 -1986 Project Packaging
1986 Detailed Design
1986 Project Construction
5. Port Street CITY/PODC $30,000 Interagency Committee/ Annual Basis Recreation, Public
Community Economic Works, Jobs,
Revitalization Board, Private Investment
LID
18. Texture Street PR/CITY/ $90,000 Local Improvement At Local Budget Constraints
PODC District/Street Funds Initiative
,,,
37
-~~~-
........ ""'" 1" = .:::0'. 1' NORTH
68
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan
APPENDIX 2
URBAN WATERFRONT WALKWAY
City of Port Orchard
Urban Waterfront Walkway
prepared by:
kasprisin design group
1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Preface •
Community Cooperation and Establishing Goals.
Report Organization . . • • • . • . . . • • •
Long Range Goal: A Continuous Waterfront Walkway
Site Analysis and Minimum Standards
Walkway Width Standards
Overall Site Plan •..
Route Examination: A Closer Look
Public Pier Terminus.
Downtown
Visitor Port
Blackjack Creek
Bay Avenue Beach
Mitchell Point
V. A. Complex
Signage Recommendations •
Implementation
Strategy and Phasing ...
Methods of Financing Segments
2
3
4
4
5
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
23
pacific ocean
r-·
(_l
~-
i
j , mt. ralner
I
? r ~j (! ~-'·-·~1-..J_/
~"'-" ~ ~~~
I
I
.-J • mt. st. helens
April 30, 1985
The Honorable Leslie J. Weatherill
Mayor, City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Dear Mayor Weatherill:
kasprisin design group
A.RCHI'l'ECTURE·URBAN PLANNING-coMMUNITY DESIGN
architects and urban planners
2510 fairview ave. e. seattle, wa. 98102
206. 328· 0900
We are pleased to present the City of Port Orchard with this
report, entitled City of Port Orchard Urban Waterfront Walkway.
The opportunity to prepare a long range walkway m~ster plan for
the Port Orchard waterfront has enabled our design team to assist
the city in advancing one more step toward realization of a dream
many citizens and downto~n merchants have entertained for years:
revitalization and active re-use of the Sinclair Inlet Water-
front. This walkway will provide a better, safer way for the
elderly, handicapped and general citizenry to gain access to
downtown. The project will also greatly improve the visitor use
of one of the city's more dramatic resources, the waterfront.
We realize that funding is limited for a project of this type.
We have, therefore, designed the walkway to be developed in
segments or increments based on the priorities of the city.
We look forward to assisting you and the city in anyway possible
in the implementation of this project and thank you for the
opportunity to once agairi serve the people of Port Orchard.
Sincerely,
Architect
rjk/ry
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Urban Waterfront Walkway
City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, Washington
1985
Mayor Leslie J. Weatherill
City Council Members
Jack Grable
Robert Geiger
John Clauson
Margaret Jane Miller
Chuck Childress
Jim Wilson
Gerald Grosso
Cit Staff
Larry Curles, City Engineer
Cory Smith
Kasprisin Design Group
Architect and Urban Planners
2510 Fairview Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Ron Kasprisin, Principal-in-Charge
with
Paul Hedrick Design
2510 Fairview Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Use of graphics within this document may be
used only with the expressed written permis-
. sion of the City of Port Orchard or the
Kasprisin Design Group. The graphics may not
be used in the production of any artifact
intended for sale or trade for personal gain
or use.
This project was supported by funds from the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Department of Commerce, administered by the
Department of Ecology, State of Washington.
PREFACE
The City of Port Orchard has commissioned the
Kasprisin Design Group to develop a concep-
tual layout for a waterfront walkway system.
The study area extends from the Lighthouse
Restaurant, near the west end of the city,
along the urban waterfront to the V.A.
residential complex in Retsil. A waterfront
walkway is consistent with Port Orchard's
desire to focus its attention on the water-
front, a valuable visitor industry resource.
i'\ I \
I ,
=
0
{;::;
I
~/
)
~ 0 20CM)4QOD
--....---''-•
........... 1""2000'-0"'
'--------·-·
NORTH
The proposed walkway will also make it easier
for area residents to walk into downtown
along the water with reduced pedestrian
vehicular conflicts. Presently, only the
marina area has a developed pedestrian path
of significant length. Other areas vary in
their ability to handle pedestrians with few
areas having developed walkways.
\
I
!
_ _J
2
JO:MMUNITY COOPERATION
A..ND ESTABLISHING GO.ALS
'o implement a continuous walkway along the
1aterfront will require the cooperation of
orivate and public land owners if the walkway
.s to become a reality. In areas where the
•alkway may cross private land, incentives,
uch as security lighting, may encourage
'wners to participate. The implementation of
waterfront walkway will take time, being
~uilt in sections as funding and opportuni-
ies become available.
800 400 0 800 1800 2 400 jllii......., . .J"' ..... _,_, ....... r·· ..... , .. ,~ m graphic •c.•l• , .. = 800.
NORTH
alnclalr Inlet
The need for an overall design route, with
possible alternatives, should be established
as a long range goal. Subsequently, when
individual developments are designed along
the water, allowance should be made to
ultimately allow the walkway to be contin-
uous. There are certain areas. in the study
area where, given present uses, it will not
be feasible to have the walkway follow the
water. In these cases, it will be built
along the roadway.
Short range goals are projects that can be
funded and implemented and may be either a
special use feature along the route or part
of the walkway itself.
City officials are enthusiastic about the
waterfront revitalization and have already
. initiated severEl projects which wJll be
incorporated into the proposed walkway. They
are: the new public pier being built near
the Lighthouse Restaurant on the DeKalb
Street Waterway; the re-use of the sewage
treatment facility near the marina; and
various landscaping projects near the water-
front. The visitor port facility proposed by
the Port of Bremerton will tie into the
walkway system and enhance Port Orchard's
reputation as a desirable visitor destination
attraction.
REPORTORGAEITZAITON
This report will first show a graphic depic-
tion of a recommended route with possible
alternatives. Then the route will be broken
into segments and each will be discussed in
more detail with conceptual sketches showing
how development may occur. The design team
was also requested to address the issue of
how signage may be used to aid the visitor
and identify points of interest. A final
component will suggest possible funding
sources.
SITE ANALYSIS AND MINIMUM
STANDARDS
The establishment of a recommended route
which the walkway may follow first required
the documentation of the existing shoreline.
Present pedestrian routes were identified and
ranged from developed sidewalks through the
marina area to areas where the roadway press-
es against the waters edge leaving little
room for pedestrians. Areas like those just
mentioned and others where high vehicular use
mixes with unestablished pedestrian routes
have been shown on the site plan as places
where special attention should be given to
pedestrian safety. In some cases these areas
can be avoided by pursuing the waterfront
route away from auto traffic.
Due to the fact that the walkway will be
planned and built in phases, it wlll be
important to arrive at some design guidelines
so future projects along the waterfront can
be incorporated into the system. The first
objective would be that waterfront develop-
ment occurring along the approved route
should make every effort to include provision
for pedestrian through-access. Closed system
development should be discouraged. "Door-
ways" should be left at either end of the
development to tie into future walkway seg-
ments. Establishing some basic walkway
widths and safety features will help the
overall design maintain continuity. These
different situations are shown diagrammati-
cally.
In the more detailed section that follows,
the overall site plan features and particular
problems will be discussed as they occur in
sequence along the route.
4
TH STANDARDS . . ALKWAYWID . ·n a un.t-
'H m-in tun> •0 ·en-viously, ad' g some s._ entl ' . "th ana ~ ·t the s ·oned pre -inclu ln ystem. ~s rn lkway Wla . 11 benefl llow a
wa t res w1 •gh to a . , Eorm fety fea u . wide enou This WJ.l..L iard sa · feet lS · s lk
. h of SlX destrJ.an . the wa -
\ "'dt to pas. PC to occur on t should
>ioyd\·oycle trafho f three fee and the
•nabl e A \u f fer -;one ro tra ffio lanes import-
.ay, tween veh,oula is of pnmary e where
>oour be This buffer led Bay Avenu feet in
ralkwayl. ng heavily travaeges eighteen drail in
ce a o ly aver a guar . n 'n ment on datory, destna he pave h not man dd to pe .. dth. Thoug a will a
'l ffer are he bu
afety.
)VE!aALL SITE PLAN
"' on-grade sidewalk
6ft. " it .,
l !
*boardwalk over water or steep hill
---,i_6ft._r
6
Basically the walkway can be
built as a sidewalk on grade
or as a boardwalk built on
piers along the waters edge.
As the latter technique is
more costly, an effort has
been made to identify a route
on grade where possible. In
other areas it may be
necessary to incorporate a
~alkway into future seawall
replacement projects.
PUBLIC PIER TERMINUS
l. In conjunction with the
Lighthouse Restaurant the
DeKalb Street Pier, which
has been recently com-
pleted, will act as a
terminus for the water-
front walkway.
A choice must be then be
made w~ether to circum-
vent the waterfront
buildings and follow the
shoreline or follow the
highway into town.
The shoreline option is
certainly the more scenic
and this route could
connect to the walk
behind the Ki tsap County
Bank building.
Because the public boat
launch is a high activity
area, this would be an
ideal viewing rest area
for walkers. Essentially
this would be a small
seating area in a safe
location.
The shaded area along Bay
Street presently has no
designated pedestrian
areas. A raised sidewalk
should incorporate shared
curbcuts to minimize
auto-pedestrian interfer-
ence.
PUBLIC PIER TERMINUS
---
-"ll ~ (;~ \ .. ·. ·t
KEY: ~ ~ (' . /:t)
WALKWAY TYPES ll:J
••••••••••••••••• EXJSTING SIDEWALK OR BOARDWALK
••••••••PROPOSED ON-GRADE SIDEWALK
-·-•-PROPOSED BOARDWALK OR CONCRETE SEAWALL
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY REQUIRES
ATTENTION IN THESE AREAS
() "EC>AL "" mTURE ALONO WALKWAY
IMAGE: A existing ....-----------------------
' '·' .,
proposed
a
4. The abandoned water
treatment facility will
be refurbished to provide
a viewing area for the
marina activity.
Pedestrian routes are
well defined as one
enters a downtown and the
marina area.
+--~-----·-------·--· ·--------------------------------------------
IMAGE B existing
-----------"" ---~----~
proposed
10
5 • This location along the
existing boardwalk would
be a good location for a
covered bus stop with
limited seating for
visitor port viewing.
This presently is a bus
stop area for the Ki tsap
County Bus System.
l. The planned visitor Port
facility should benefit
the City and compliment
the waterfront walkway.
'· This is an area where a
steep hills ide abuts the
roadway and a pedestrian
route would require a
pier system of construc-
tion.
I. The Port of Bremerton has
already designated this
parcel for a park deve-
lopment. The park will
be an excellent visitor
facility but provision
should be made to allow a
walkway connection
between the boardwalk and
a future walkway along
Bay Street.
1
This section is a bottle-
neck with a limited
shoulder area along Bay
Street. Some existing
buildings appear abandon-
ed and others press
against the roadway.
Future uses should
include an easement for
the walkway as this
property is situated in
the Bay Street right-of-
way.
VISITOR PORT
•
12
0.
1.
ation of cooper the With the d owners, t e lan porate P riva ld incor f k ay cou . on o wal w . sectl t
scenlc from mos a line away shore ffic. auto tra
. dge over . brl b A pedestrlan l< would e
. acl< Cree . nt for Blacl<J tage pOl d.-
ood van In ad l
a gb r viewing. t this
har o a bridge a. ate a
tion' ld allevl . u-. t wou . vehlc po~nt of maJor nflicts
poln destrian co'dge. lar-pe . ting brl the exls
on Shopping
West Bay · gnated At th: no des~ wall<-
Cente ~s exist. center wall<w~ehind thesant and
way be a plea for
would alternative safer
tr.ians. pedes
~~·· f/
7::-.
I
rM:AGE:C proposed
14
2. This beach area is one of
the few natural beaches
within the downtown. The
property is privately
owned and not presently
available to be developed
for public use, it
appears, however, that
locals and visitors park
cars nearby to catch the
harbor view. An organi-
zed approach to some
parking and a walkway
will help preserve this
natural amenity.
3. Waterfowl congregate
along this portion of
shoreline making it an
appropriate location for
a small rest area. As
this is also a long
unbroken stretch of
walkway, the rest area
may especially be
appreciated by senior
citizen users.
--~ ______ " _____ -------------"""" -----"" ____ "_" -------
Point
• I
' . . ·-·--'
BAY AVE. BEACH
IMAGE: D existing
-·-·
proposed
16
l4. Local resident reports
indicate this section of
roadway is not properly
drained, causing the
shoulder area to flood
after heavy rains. Walk-
ers must use the narrow
driving lanes to circum-
vent the flooded areas.
5. Mitchell Point can become
an area designed for
local community use as
well as rest/viewing
point for visitors. A
small covered seating
area with an open fire
pit would make this an
excellent location to
watch harbor activity in
the evening as well as
during the day.
l. Presently this short
section of roadway has
shoulder area width of
only two feet. Wa 1 kers
are restricted to an area
between the vehicular
travel lane and a de-
pressed seawall.
MHo hell r·-·. i .
MlTCBELL POlNT
Th1AGE E existing
proposed
18
17. Due to the close proxi-
mity of the buildings to
Beach Drive at Arnold
Avenue, it is advisable
to use the land side of
the street for the walk-
way. This should include
improved crosswalk
identification over what
now exists to alert
motorists of traffic.
9
The trail on the hill
from the V.A. residence
should be improved at
least along the lower
section. In its present
condition, broken and
twisted handrails and
uneven ground offer
little incentive for
potential users. To
re-establish this pathway
with realistic and com-
fortable walking grades
removes pedestrian
traffic from Beach Drive,
a road poorly sui ted for
pedestrians.
.,\,~1 ...
, V. A?j··H .. ESID .. 'NTIAi'<Co>OeLCX
' i
'< \.
· .. \,) !'
IMAGE F existing
proposed
20
SIGNAGE RECOM:MENDATIONS
The purpose of a signuge system will be to
provide information to users on the features
of Sinclair Inlet and help loc?te their posi-
tion on the walkway.
On the opposite page is a sketch of a small
information center. As noted on the accom-
panying map, these may be installed at the
three locations indicated on the plan. They
could include a short local history; a map of
the Sinclair Inlet vicinity noting special
features which can be seen across the water;
and, a map of the walkway.
identification signage
Vandal1sm is 3 concern fo:c "Street Furni-
ture." Ideally, the signs should be made
with a substanti&l base such as concrete with
stocky wooden members. The map area would be
covered with vandal resistant plastic and
could be replaced if damaged wi tho~.;t having
to repair the map surface.
The lower sketch would be typical of identi-
fication signage. It is designed primarily
for pedestrians and therefore could be un-
obstructive to views and incorporated into
the design of the rest area or seawall.
map locations
walkway information center
PORT ORCHARD
WALKWAY MAP
22
3TRATEGY ANDPHASING
A strategy for accomplishing the walkway
should focus on the critical nodes or gather-
ing areas along the walkway as well as impor-
tant walkway segments which are unencumbered
JY private ownership issues. Therefore, the
niority of walkway increments should be as
follows:
r.
II.
III.
IV.
Nodes on public property;
Walkway segments on public property
which would alleviate or reduce
potentially unsafe areas;
Walkway segments on public property
which are important connections
between special features, or provide
access to special features;
Walkway segments on private property
where the private landowner is will-
ing to cooperate with the overall
program.
v. Walkway segments which can be con-
structed as 'spin-off' projects
associated with larger, more exten-
sive public infrastructure projects.
number of these phasing increments can be
Jrsued and developed concurrently.
aETHODS OF FINANCING SEG:MENTS
lblic sector walkway segments and nodes can
~ financed in part by various state and
!deral programs.
1ese programs are diverse and require
1mmi tment by the City and/ or the Port for
igibility.
l.
2.
3.
4.
The City of Port OrchDrd Capitol
Public Improvements Program, as
financed by local taxes. The walkway
segments should be prioritized by
downtown and neighborhood districts
and included within the city's
streets and sidewalk program;
State of Washington Inter Agency Com-
mittee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
has available 50% matching grants for
public recreation projects which pro-
vide access to the waterfront are
participatory (jogging, walking, bike
riding, viewpoints, etc.), and family
oriented. Application for funding
should be made to IAC by May 1985 for
consideration for funding. This is
one of the more reliable and avail-
able sources. Competition is keen
and grant packages should be well
prepared.
The State Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, Community Econ-
omic Revitalization Board (CERB) pro-
vides low interest loans through
municipalities for public improve-
ments necessary to stimulate private
investment and job creation. The
Port of Bremerton could qualify for
these funds to construct walkway and
node projects in conjunction with new
visitor moorage.
The Washington State Community Deve-
lopment Block Grant Program could
assist particularly as this project
benefits low and moderate income
citizens by providing public recrea-
tion and access to the water: would
resolve problems which could allevi-
ate potentially health and safety
problems for pedestrians: and would
provide special projects directed to
the removal of architectural barriers
which restrict the mobility and
accessibility of elderly and handi·-
capped persons. Property acquisition
could be on eligible project cost.
5. A local improvements district could
be formed, by city district, for the
non-city wide or neighborhood share
of the project. While an L.I.D. may
not be the most popular approach for
local residents, the City may parti-
cipate and pay the majority share
with a smaller L.I.D. benefiting
adjacent property owners.
6. The Economic Development Administra-
tion's Public Works Assistance Pro-
gram may be a valid source for deve-
loping publicly-owned recreational
facilities to develop the area's
tourism.
All of these programs are discussed at length
in the Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization
Project, 1983 under Chapter 3, The Next Step:
Strategy and Implementation.
The strength of the waterfront project
regarding its competitiveness for state and
federal funds lies in three key areas:
First, the project will benefit elderly,
handicapped, and/ or low income residents of
Port Orchard, and specifically the Veterans
Administration have to gain improved access
to downtown services; second, the project
will reduce the potential vehicular-pedes-
trian confli~ts which presently exists along
the waterfront road network; and, third, the
project will support the visitor use of the
waterfront, thus strengthing the visitor
industry economic objectives of the city.
In any event, the total project can be phased
accordingly to the needs and budget. Accomp-
lishing at least one segment of the walkway
system each year will provide functional and
visual impact and maintain community momen-
tum.
•
24
Port Orchard Waterfront
Revitalization Project
City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, WA
1m3 ·· .. ~
3 May 1983
The Honorable Lee Caldwell
Mayor, City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, Washington
Dear Mayor Caldwell:
katpritin · pettinari detign
architect/ and urban plonnert
2031 eottloke ave. 1eottle 98102 328-0900
We are very pleased to submit the City of Port Orchard Downtown Revitalization
Recommendations to the City and citizens of Port Orchard. These recommenda-
tions represent six months of intensive study working with the Revitalization
Task Force, th City Council and City Planning Commission. We are confident
that this report portrays the community's objectives and ideas in a realistic
and achievable manner.
We have designed this report both as a graphically illustrated design ilostruc-
tion book and a document which promotes the resources of the community. The
recommendations strive to capture the assets and potentials of those resources
for the future economic and physical benefit of the community.
Our study team, which consisted of KASPRISIN-PETTINARI DESIGN and JUMP,
HUIBREGTSE, STOUDER, INC., have enjoyed working with the city's elected
officials, city staff, and the Task Force Members. we are very encouraged by
the leadership which exists in both the public and private sectors of the Port
Orchard community and are confident of the increase in the quality of life
that the leadership will engender for the downtown and waterfront areas.
We trust we have fulfilled the charge given to us by the City and look forward
to seeing the recommendations presented in this report becoming reality. Wt
are always available to assist you in any way possible in the future
development of your city.
Sincerely,
;;;;;;r~
Ronald J. Kas~risin /I
Architect andfurban Pllahner
RJK/rb
WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION
PROJECT
~ITY OF PORT ORCHARD
,ort Orchard, Washington
l983
1e City of Port Orchard
lrt Orchard, \Jashington
tyor Lee F. Caldwell
brmer Mayor) Paul Powers Jr.
ty Counci 1 Members
onard Clark
l:ert Geiger
hn Clauson
rgaret Jane t1i ller
uck Childress
rald Grosso
m \ii lson
ty Planning Commission
m fbkanson, Chairman
)nard Minor
meth Hacker
:h Strube
·lene Thompson
1Uel Taylor
1 Hong
an Barger
y Staff
ry Curles, City Engineer
y Smith
~SPRISIN-PETTINARI DESIGN
rchi tects and Urban Planners
1attle, Wa.
Imp, Huibregtse, St.ouder, Inc.
1gineers and Planners
~nton-Selah, W A
Special Thanks To:
Revitalization Task Force:
Ken O!erry
Russel Halsted
Ibn Mason
Carolyn Powers
Arnold Norem
Herb Thelson
Marvin Coe
Jerry Burkhardt
Low Reichter
Barbara Stamp
Jim Armstrong
Jorden Cohen
Millard Buford
Marlin MafBles
Bi 11 S trankrnan
Vle greatfully acknowledge the flying skills of Larry
Curies, City Engineer -The Red Baron would have
been proud.
Use of graphics within this document may be used
only with the expressed written permission of the
City of Port Orchard or Kasprisin-Pettinari Design.
The graphics may not be used in the production of
any artifact intended for sale or trade for personal
gain or use.
This project was supported, in part, by funds from
the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, administered by the
Department of Ecology, State of WashifBton.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Purpose and Use of This Document • . . • • • . • • • • . . • · •
Preface
1 The Settin.g: Factors Influencing Development .
Area Resources
Business Survey . . • . • . • . . • • · · · · · ·
2 The Projects: Design &lco:mme:rxiations
Overview
Recommendations by District
City Entry .
Sidney Hill
Downtown ..
Marina Water Edge
Downtown East Entry
Highway Commercial .
West Bay • . • . • •
3 The Next Step: Strategy a.nd Implementation
Organization . • . • . •
Management/Financial Plan
Federal Financial Assistance
State Financial Assistance
Economic Recovery Tax Act
Port of Call Package
Financial Plan & Project Summary
2
3
5
15
19
21
25
26
30
32
38
42
43
44
47
49
50
51
55
56
60
64
PURPOSE AND USE OF TIDS DOCUMENT
The objectives of this study are to develop
recommendations for revitalizing the downtown and
waterfront areas of the City of Port Orchard. Those
recommendations are presented in this document.
The purpose and use of this document is threefold:
1 to identify and describe those projects in
downta;m and along the waterfront which can be
realistically and affordably accomplished;
2 to demonstrate the manner in which those projects
can be accarplished, both through local efforts
and financing and, through assistance fran
federal, state and/or other non-local sources;
'7 to serve as a prarotional dOC\..liTent for use by
both the City of Port Orchard and the rrerchants
and citizenry in pursuit of revitalization
objectives.
'ort Orchard has the opportunity to use the
>utstanding natural and developed resources of the
:urrounding area to greatly improve its image and
conomic base. Promoting these resources as a part
,f a revitalization strategy is a significant
bjective for the use of this document. Examples of
uch promotion effort include:
• the report should be submitted to state and
federal legislators as a means of documenting
the City's development object1ves and
informing the legislators of the specific
projects and funding strategies the Ci Ly
anticipates assistance in developing;
• submission of
report to
associations,
associations;
the report or sections of the
Puget Sound area travel
travel agents, visitor
• submission to cruise ship companies such as
the Virginia V. Foundation, West Tours and
charter boat operations to demonstrate the
present and future visitor industry
development activities of the area;
• the report should be circulated to the library
and the Port Orchard Historical Society.
In addition, the document and its graphics should be
made available to special local interest groups for
the promotion and development of private sector
economies which relate to downtown and waterfront
revitalization. Such groups could include:
• The downtown association(s);
• local merchants and realtors;
• local and area chamber of commerces;
• private investor groups;
• The Port of Bremerton.
Finally, this report should becorre a necessary and
on-going tool for the private sector in the
rev1t:alization 01 downtown Port Orchard and its
waterfront.
PREFACE
The Port Orchard Downtown Waterfront Revitalization
Project is being sponsored and managed by the City of
Port Orchard. The finn KASPRISIN-PETI'INARI DESIGN,
Architects and Urban Planners, is under contract to the
City to develop the waterfront developnent plan. The
funding for the study is provided by the City of Port
Orchard and the Office of Coastal Zone Managanent,
National Oceanic and Atrrospheric Administration, u.s.
Department of Connerce, administered by the Depart:Irent
of Ecology, State of Washington. The project is
assisted by a Task Force of area residents, prcperty
owners, business people and city officials.
The project area encarpasses the total waterfront
within the city limits with special attention on the
do.mtoN:n area. While dealing with the waterfront area,
the study assesses the related issues of parking,
retail activity and the changing use of the da.mto,.m.
The project began on Noverrber 1 , 198 2, with the first
Task Force rreeting in City Hall. On Decerrber 14, 1982,
the Task. Force rret to discuss issues and direction. On
January 17, 1983, an open house was held in the H<Jl.Ve
Building at Frederick and Bay Streets to gain input
fran the general public. This open house, referred to
as a "design studio," proved a big success with over
sixty people providing input for the designers. On
.!<larch 2, 1983, the study team circulated a newspaper
insert in the Port Orchard Independent for public
infonnation and project prarotion. On the evening of
~larch 7, 1983, there was a major presentation of desiqn
concepts and site specific recamendations. On the
evening of April 11, 1983, the Task Force _and City
Council reviewed final reccmrendations and the study
team proceeded with preparation of the final docurrent.
THE PLANNING DOCUMENT
This document has been designed to emphasize design
concepts and specific design recommendations.
The report is organized into three chapters:
• Context: a description of the locational assets
of Port Orchard as well as a sunmary of those
significant influences affecting developnent;
• Design Recamendations: specific proposals for
revitalization in ooth the public and private
sectors;
• The Next Step .•. : a discussion of strategy and
rrethods to i.nplerrent the designs.
Many projects are presented with
that their implementation could
the
occur
anticipation
w1thin the
first year. Other projects,
described in relationship to the
coordination and design necessary
!!lore complex, arl'
additional planning,
to make them happen.
Finally, while this dcx::ument deals primarily with tht:
do>mtown area of Port Orchard dnd tl1e ll!Ulle<l.tzlt '·'
waterfront and upland areas within the city lx:lunddf'f,
the (ksiC)n approach and community involvement v;)JJ·.·i:
~;ere' so imp:xtant to the success of this dcx::ument .~:-c·
llso possible in other areas of the city.
2
L THE SETTING ...
j ~ : -
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
DEVELOPMENT
. n
I , ,
A VISITOR'S VIEW-THE MISSOURJ AND PORT ORCHARD
4
trea resources
1 order to understand and appreciate the potential of
Je Port Orchard carrnuni ty it is necessary to
1derstand the physical proximity of the carmunity to
~stem Washington's rrountalll and water resources,
~reational opportunities, and urban centers. The
1ture of the carm.mi ty ' s image , Port Orchard' s
:mrercial center revitalization, and the future
:onanic base of the cannunity is directly related to
1e recognition of and appreciation for those natural
~S0urces.
ghlights of the area's resources and history are
esented to the reader as a backdrop for the design
oposals which follow in later chapters.
1E PUGET SOUND REGION
lracteristic's of Port Orchard's regional location
:lude:
e the composition of forests, water and
mountains of Western Washington;
• the Olympic ~buntain range thirty miles to the
west;
• access to the City of Tacoma twenty miles to
the south;
• access to the City of Seattle fifteen miles to
the east;
e direct access to the City of Bremerton nine
land miles (three water miles) to the north;
e views southeast to ~bunt Rainier and northwest
to the Olympic ~untains;
e and, the employment, recreation and livability
of Kitsap county.
rTSAP COUNTY
.sup county lies between the
·ridor of Tacoma-5eattle-Everett
developing
and the
mtains and Pacific 0:-ean to tlle west. The
Kbcape is characterized by the shorelines
urban
Olympic
county
of the
bays and inlets of central Puget Sound as well as the
glaciated inland ridges and bluffs formed by the Vashon
Glacier sare 14,000 years ago. Significantly for the
City of Port Orchard, access to Kitsap County fran the
east for the past 100 years or sc has been limited and
has provided the community with an isolation and
insulation which has remained until the last decade.
The county's image is strongly influenced by the
smaller inlet communities of Poulsbo, Silverdale,
Kingston, Manchester and Port Orchard. As Ki tsap
County responds and reacts to the increased
development of marine and military related economic
activity, so too is Port Orchard, the County seat,
changing arrl modifying its role am function.
Ki tsap county land use policy is promoting high
density population growth at and near urban
centers. For the South Ki tsap County planning
district, Port Orchard and Manchester are those
urban centers containing or having potenial for the
necessary services to support the higher population
concentrations. A county objective is to protect
the rural character of the Kitsap peninsula and
control the growth associated with the developing
military related employment base.
County population, by county estimates, will
increase from the 1975 figure of 26, iUO in South
Ki tsap to 42,000 by 1985, t~<,Q years away. The 4, 600
population of Port Orchard will definitely be
impacted by the county growth, possibly exceeding
5,000 by 1985.
The military employment base is expanding at the
Bangor Naval Reservation northwest of Port Orchard,
at the naval ship yard at Bremerton immediately
north of the city, and at the Keyport Naval Research
Station to the west. Associated impacts on Port
Orchard will involve annexation pressures, increased
service requirements, additional outlying shopping
plaza proposals, and traffic and transportation
problems.
/'
pacific ocean
r .vancouve~/
r ',j f )
15 12.5 0
11'1ii11Un:~wiwul!!l~nt1r:.JJ~tt-.• .,A,
gaphic scale
6
THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
rhe physical characteristics of the city consist of the
;;ver present waterfront along Sinclair Inlet, uplands
vhich rise sharply fran the water's edge along the
1orthem portion of the city characterized by
1orth-south ravines serving as drainage ways to
;inclair Inlet. Two predaninant ravines bound the
fuwntawn commercial center of Port Orchard, Blackjack
:reek on the east and Port Orchard Boulevard (a
tistodc drainage area) on the west. An additional
:avine exists east of Blackjack Creek and forms the
~rridor for SR-160, Bay Street.
i
) J
r /
I ;
/-1
I
I
GORST
:tooo o rooo 40CID
•• -t .... J '· ~ ... '-·-~
W'"i>l'>'~ -~· I' "':l'OOO' -0 ~ ,-'....1/~
NORTH
Blackjack Creek is a significant salmon habitat in the
Sinclair Inlet Basin. Chum, coho, and chinook salrron,
steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout all occupy the
creek drainage. Chum salmon utilize the lower reaches
for spawning and rearing. No significant habitats
exist for fish species along the City of Port Orchard's
Sinclair Inlet waterfront.
To constructively deal with the in-pacts of county
growth, Port Orchard rrust rrodify its image and role
as a small waterfront community. In no
I
i(
\
\
~
1 I·
\ llABCR!BTZR
)
1
rranner need the values and intimacy of the small
cam11JI1ity change drastically; ha.-rever 1 as services,
housing, shopping areas and public facilities exparo
o:way fran the water's edge, the role of the historic
waterfront center needs to adjust. As Port Orchard
develops further as a "focus" or center of activity for
South Kitsap County 1 the resources of its natural
setting 1 the views, recreation potential and quality of
life need to be reasserted anct praroted as inherent
characteristics in the emerging Port Orchard community.
1100 ~ 0 ~ 11100 2400 t' '1:1,1 , li~!'ll/llllliiNIIIII:IJIUI t !IIIIHIMIIIIII~Iiilll!l~
lf,IIJ!IIJ 'il·lirl:~oiiJI!II:tallill
graphic oc.le 1"=1100'
NORTH
elnclelr Inlet
The Port Orchard Downtown Waterfront
Revitalization Project is bounded on the
north by the harbor line, on the east by
the city limits, on the south by the
upland residential areas, and on the west
by the city limits.
8
HISTORY
'he following are sumn13.ry gl1mpses from
~1at 's In A Name" Ki tsap County d '1hl"'Y,
lY the Ki tsap County Historical 3oc tPty.
"3 idney,
Publlshed
t.e town of Sidney (Port Orchard) was named after
idney Stevens by his son Frederick when the town
•as being plotted in 1886. While Sidney became Port
1rchard in 19)3, there were in actuality four Port
1rchards in the Sinclair Inlet area: l) the early
ill town at Enetai; 2) Charleston (formerly Port
rchard); 3) in l89J, the town of Port Orchard two
iles west of Bremerton; 4) and the existing City of
ort Orchard (Sidney).
ort Orchard (Sidney) has been the county seat since
893. The physical development of the town began in
886 and was bound by Sinclair Inlet (Port Orchard
3 y) on the north, Sidney Street on the east,
ivision Street on the south and \lest 3treet on the
est.
n 1890 the boundaries were fixed by the Inlet on
1e north, Mitchel Road on the east, on the south by
)Uth Street, and one block west of Short Street on
1e west.
l!Tber was the primary industry \.Ultil a Navy Carrnission
>lected Port Orchard Bay as a site for the second
1cific Coast Naval Base. In addition to the naval
1se, two steam sawmills and shingle mills operated on
Lackjack Creek. A large tx>ttery and terra-cotta plant
w located at the foot of Pottery Hill. Fire
. spatched both the tx>ttery and shingle mills.
t 1888 Bay Street was beach or tidelands, flcxxhng
th salt water with every tide. The first "LID"
,r improvements was placed on local saloons in the
.rm of a license tax or tx>ll tax and Sidney and Bay
reets were improved. By 1~5, Bay Street was a
aden boardwalk containing over twelve structures
cl uding the S .s. Finney Livery Barn, Weber's
loon, Corbetts' Drug Store, the Yakie Building,
e Brick HoteL Hiller's General Merchandise,
vie's Grocery Store, a Methodist Church, a First
ristian Church, a funeral parlor, the Shingle
11, Dempster Cottage and Ainsworth' s Grocery.
the late 1880's and 90's several railroad surveys
re conducted which i.rrpacted, at least, the narres of
rt Orchard's streets. Exanples include "Depot
reet" in Annapolis, "Railroad Avenue" in the Potter:r·
~ek ravine, and "Railroad Addition."
1892, the county seat was approved for 3idney,
moving from Port ~adison. In 1908, the Washington
Veterans !lome was l=ated to the east of town.
Sidney Hi 11 was referred to as "Fort Hi 11" in the
early days and was secured w1th a cannon from the
old steamer Polytofs~, a gunboat inherited from
Russia with the U.S. purchase of Alaska.
Much of Port Orchard's history is clearly related to
the water and ships. Early residents of Port
Orchard (Sidney) were not adverse to rowing to
Seattle although sail boat transport was more
common. Around 1888, steamer service began to the
Bay from Seattle, Colby, and Manchester. The early
steamers were the Lei£ Erickson, the Helen, the
Grace, the M:mntaineer, the A.R. Robinson~ the
sariJuan. Sternwheelers were also used up to 1900.
Freight was handled primarily by sailboats such as
the schooners Harry, Cora, and Joaquin. Around
1 c:xJO, more substantial craft plied the Bay such as
the Athlon and Inland Flyer (forerunners of the
Virginia class). Others joined the fleet and the
H.B. Kennedi: (changed to the Seattle) became an
automotive ferry in the early 1930's. The City of
Bremerton was the first automobile ferry to serve
Port Orchard Bay.
Passenger and vehicle steamer and ferry ships have
played a dramatic part in Port Orchard's history.
Names of a few of the ships include: Chippewa,
Enetai, Willapa, City of Sacramento, and Malahat.
There may be a place in Port Orchard's future for at
least the rememberance of the Mosquito Fleet .
ARCmTECTURE
Architecture: Fire has claimed many of the original
Port Orchard-sidney structures since the 1890's. In
1895, nineteen buildings of the business center of
Sidney were destroyed. Despite. fire and perennial
economic hardtimes, the downtown has rebuilt and
remodelled itself over the last ninety years. Basic
materials included wood and wood frame contruction.
Design was actually quite diverse, reflecting the
dreams and aspirations of the community. Styles
ranged from the mid-victorian and somewhat elaborate
Sidney Hotel to the work buildings of the Port
Orchard docks.
The Sidney Hotel (Navy View Hotel) , conpleted in 1893,
contained forty-five rooms, a dining room, a
lobby/ballroom and bar, plus utility roans. The hotel
was ITDved two bl=ks to its present location in 1910
after a fla~h flood damaged tl1e foundation.
Historically, uses have varied fran the stately and
elegimt NL!vy View Hotel to a work house for the county.
navy vie
dance ha.
• -. .
-. p
"
~, ~
tage , .( lJt
.. -# ~ f' ~ ..... · . .. ·~
hotel " ... • ": • 4
• Ill .. ,.~.
• "P .. ......
• ..
... ·' J
Port Orchard 1914
Port Orchard 1982
teri!l1n8J.
.. • • • • • • ..
~J c:~ ~ !
'i-J-::.;'
I
L,
"c
The structure is presently vacant and in a state of
partial restoration.
Miller 1 s General ~rchandise (Blanchard 1 s Depart:Irent
Store), located on Bay Street, was a splendid exanple
of late 1880 architecture containing a Victorian
two-story high, narr<:M front fascade. Constructed of
woo::i frarre materials and finished with ship lap siding,
the building is highlighted by bracketed cornices and
rrezzanine winda.vs along Bay Street and Sidney.
632 Bay Street Buildings (Soo Hoy Cafe), is notable
as an example of numerous structures in Port
Orchard's history having the same front fascade and
roof pitch characteristics. The 632 Building is
essentially the last remaining fascade of this type .
'Xl2 Bay Street Buildif¥3 (Howe Buildi!:!J) became a
landmark as a dominant, concrete constructed
building prominently situated at Bay Street and
Frederick Street •
Brick Store Block, at the corner of Bay and Sidney
Streets, is a one-story commercial structure
significant for its corbelled brick fascade.
Callison 1 s, Inc. 1 Buyers Building, originally
constructed as a warel'xJuse, is a ~ frarre one-story
structure with typical pitched roof 1 high parapet
fascade and V-drop siding. Th rear !X)rtion of the
building is still on pilings over the water. The
wilding is typical of the Port Orchard dock and
warehouse structures constructed around 1900.
The present day Bay Street fa cade contains many
architectural forms and elements from the early 1900
Port Orchard building stock. They provide a
substantial base for a genuine and inherent Port
Orchard image, one which is directly integrated to
the history and growth of the community.
10
SINCLAIR INLET
County Bldg
Orchard
Ravine
Commercial
Tidelands
WA. Veterans
Home
)to
Blackjackr ~L-r------------~1 :===:
Creek
Ravine
r
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
The overall development pattern follows the
shoreline and ravine geography. Filled tidelands
have altered the natural state of the shoreline
since the late 1800s, providing the only available
building area at the water level. The Pbrt Orchard
Blvd. ravine area, Blackjack Creek ravine and the
ravine traversed by Highway 160 provide both
drainage and access from the upland bluff to the
waterfront.
Commercial development occurs along the waterfront
tidelands at the base of the bluff in a linear
configuration. While land availability for
development does not exist in large sections,
quality building in-full on vacant and under
utilized property along the waterfront offers
potent ia1 expansion space for water dependent and
related uses.
BREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
In 1966, Port Orchard completed a comprehensive plan
for the city and downtown area. As a point of
reference, the development recommendations for the
downtown and waterfront are summarized below.
Pertinent aspects of the plan include:
• a scenic waterfront beach drive, from the
De Kalb Street right-of-way connecting to Bay
Avenue east of the West Bay Commercial area;
• a substantial fill of the tidelands along the
waterfront from the De Kalt. Street waterway to
and including Blackjack Creek and West Bay;
e a waterfront park and restaurant on newly
filled tidelands;
• a new yacht c] ub marina,
filled tidelands at the
Creek;
boat sale area on
mouth of Blackjack
• and, an ex~1ndL~, east-west commercial wall to
the north side of the existing Bay 3 treet
complex; a civic center/auditorium was
included in the development;
• A relocation of city hall to Sidney Street and
the Blackjack Creek extension (present by-pass
prop::>sal);
• and, a new waterfront motel.
Ferry
Auditorium
sr 160
12
Sinclair Inlet
r ATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
he majority of the project area is
nconsolidated fill material dating back
o 1sro.
located on
in stages
he geology of the waterfront consists of fill
~terial with fair to poor foundation suitability
nd very poor seismic stability. The maximum damage
Jring the April 1949 earthquake occured in
tructures built on fill conditions.
lopes bounding the project area and the downtown
ce generally greater that 15% and are not suitable
)r significant construction.
surf smelt critical habitat area occurs outside of
1e project area between the western city limits and
1e higt.w21y 16 turnoff. Significant coastal drift
:curs at the rnouth of Blackjack Creek which is
Marina
•
•• •
• : :::r~:::: ':.""..-:.-.. -:::,.-... -~ .... ::
• • ••• •
: ... -.. ~::;: ::: .. -.:::., • .. : <:·--:· .. -.... : .. ·.·: --~·:;. -.. -.:· .. -:..
daninated by a sand shelf. The drift is northwest in
direction, east of the creek; and west, west of the
creek. Where structural rip rap is not present along
the creek shoreline, notable eroding exists.
Wave action is from the northeast, varying fran
one-half foot to two feet in height 7. 5% of the tirre
and 30% from the north.
WATERFRONT ACTIVITIES
The Mosquito fleet has served Sinclair Inlet from
the 1890's to the present, with state as well as
private vessels providing transport. The early Port
Orchard-5 idney waterfront was characterized by
finger piers extending out over the tidelands for
steamer and ferry use. During the early 19/D's the
Port of Brcmvrton contructed Ci marina along the
• •
Westbay
downtown waterfront which greatly enhances the
marine use of downtown. The marina consists of the
followifY3:
• 360 total berths, approximately 75% of them
covered; space for expansion is available;
• 1,200 feet of visiting boat area inside the
breakwater and an equal amount outside for
larger boats;
• a deep water harbor ranging in depth from 30
to 50 feet; and, a m1n1mum of fifteen feet
depth at the shoreline.
The privately owned Port Orchard-Bremerton passenger
ferry utilizes the Sidney Street vlaterway and
provides service to Port Orchard, Annapolis and the
Bremerton t<aval Shipyard. This ferry transports
between 1,200 and L 600 persons across Sinclair
Inlet every work day.
14
JOUNTY OFFICES
'ort orchard is the County seat. In 1980-1981 it
·errodelled ancJ extensively expanded the facilities to
.he south of downto.vn at the top of Cl inc Street.
.pproxirrately 350 people are: employed by the county at
.he facility. In 1983, work b<:qan on thl' new Kitsap
:ounty Work Release facility assoClated with the
.xisting County carple.x.
~aRT ORCHARD BY-PASS
1 an effort to reduce traffic congestion into and
1rough the downtown area, the City of Port Orchard
; presently involved ' in the development of a
•-pass connecting Tremont to Lund 5 treet (the
·eferred connector). This connector will cross
ackjack Creek ravine between Tremont and Lund
reet in a four lane configuration between Port
chard Boulevard and Sidney Avenue and for a
o-fcnt section of Lund Street west of Bethel. The
tersections of the by-pass connector and Port
chard Bl.xi, Sidney Avenue {Road) , and Bethel Road
1 will have signalizations and pavement
provements. According to the City of Port Orchard
-Pass Environmental Impact Statement,
proximately one-third of the traffic on Bay Street
j one-half the traffic on Sedgewich (the two
st.-west existing connectors), will be diverted to
ls route upon construction of the by-pass.
[TSAP TRANSIT
.sap Transit initiated bus service for Port
:hard and Kitsap County on M:>nday, April 18,
l3. Three bus routes for Port Orchard began at
foot of the ferry dock in downtown and go to
tar Heights, Bransonwood, and Orchard Heights. In
i tion1 a special corrunuter run for foot ferry
sengers services the Annapolis dock.
sap Transit was created in the fall of 1982 with
er approval of the Public Transit Benefit Area
BA) I funding corrunuter 1 local Bremerton, and
ior citizen transportation through the Kit.sap
insula Housing and Transportation Association.
th Ki tsap County is serviced by the "County Line"
:h began operation April 4, 1983.
1cts on the downtown development recommendations
discussed in a later chapter.
business survey
Dun ng Novcmrher 1 :JH2, lnterviews were c"'Onaucted
with conunun1 t y leaders, ciowntown business people,
an~ lanrl and buildincJ owners to assess the1r
attitudes, aspirations, fears and leadership
abilitiPs re<Jarding the future of downtown and the
adJacent waterfront. The results and assessment of
those interviews are provided below as a prelude to
discussions of proposed design improvements and
design strategies.
St
Sedgwick Rd
A downtown workshop was conducted on January 17,
1983 to gather community-at-large response to the
waterfront downtown development project. In
addition, a special newspaper insert was included in
the Port Orchard Independent newspaper on March 2,
1983.
THE ECONOMY
It is accepted that the Pacific Northwest's economy
has greater difficulties than that of the nation.
Many feel that the nation's ecot.omic conditions are
the result of decline of productivity, years of
inflation, increased foreign competition, and
continual federal deficits, all combining to stifle
real growth and investment at home. The structural
difficulties in the economy are defined in a manner
that so., utions require new investment and new
production models, such as restructuring the steel
and auto industry, if the nation's industrial base
is to regain its competitive edge in the world
competition. While the State of Washington is not
dependent upon the steel, auto, and other basic
industries, as much of the Hidwest and Northeast is,
it does, however, have several economies, the forest
products industry and the agricultural industry,
that are suffering from the same malaise.
The forest products industry, because of the decline of
th~ housing industry the past several years, and
because of increasing carpetition fran other parts of
the coootry and the world, has been in disastrous
shape. It may never fully recover its previous
irrportance in the Northwest. Even with increases in
housing activity, many of the hones to be constructed
over the next decade are probably going to require less
lunber and fewer other wood products.
A second vital econanic activity, the agriculture of
the State, is also experiencing increasing competition
plus rising costs.
All of these relate to the amount of expendable
income in the state, and while not directly
impacting Port Orchard, impact the market it is
attempting to pursue, regional tourism, and the
disposable recreational and leisure dollar further
discussed below.
The area's economy is significantly impacted by the
importance of the nearby Naval shipyard in employ-
ment and income. In one document reviewed, Kitsap
County is reported to have the highest per capita
dollar amount of federal expenditure of any county
in the nation. The significance of this is not lost
on the average business in the area, and neither are
the fluctuations in the federal or military
employment. The increased activity announced
several months ago will bring more employment and
income to the area, but as one Port Orchard
businessperson observed, its impact on Port Orchard
will be in three ways: increased real estate
activity, increased gasoline sales, and increased
traffic and circulation problems. As the military
base is apparently served by two excellent PX's,
traditional retailers are facing pricing competition
beyond their ability to compete.
DOWNTOWN IDENTITY
Throughout the interviews with the downtn.n
businesspeople and others with knowledge or experience
in the econanics of the downtown, c:aments alrrost
without exception indicated that the future of the
downtn.n was tied to recreation and tourism
opportunities, coupled with the advantages provided by
the natural waterfront and not in competition with the
central business district of Brerrerton, or with the PX' s
provided by the Naval Base. In addition, the
respondents recognize that Port Orchard had sare
advantages that the other areas don't possess, that is,
the waterfront and Port of Brerrerton, Port Orchard
marina noorage in the downtown.
Many of the businesses that are now in operation
exist because of tourism and the downtown
waterfront. For example, the t1ariner' s Mug, several
taverns and knickknack shops occur downtown. They
probably would not be there if it wasn't for the
proximity to the waterfront and the marina. \mile
some traditional retailers still operate, such as
Rice Electric and Blanchard's Department Store,
these either are family businesses that have been in
operation for several generations, or are businesses
undergoing change and becoming more specialized,
catering to an increasing tourism, visitor market.
If Port Orchard is to contain a downtown with strong
retail services, it may be necessary to continue to
specialize and create its own market, that is, the
establishment of stores and activities of interest
to visitors and boaters. The recognition of this
identity does, in fact, now exist. The future
requires that it be emphasised and planned for in a
more organized and concerted fashion.
The two problems most frequently identified by members
of the downtown connunity are parking and traffic
circulation. To sone degree, the circulation problem,
which largely creates the parking problem, will be
significantly alleviated as the bypass is constructed
during the next several years. The exdct nature of the
parking problem is related to carpetition for available
spaces between camtUters and shoppers. The solution
most likely hinges on the future of parking provision
for commuters away from the waterfront. In a parking-
16
ferry survey conducted by the study team during the
Wlnter of 1983, over 50% of comwters using the
passenger ferry parked in the downtown. . The rem.:uning
SO% either walked hane, walked to outly1ng areas where
u1e1r cars were parked or were picked up in the
downtown area. The parking sUl~ey also indicated
nl.l!Tlet·ous vacant shoH=>er parking spaces throughout the
day. There are obviously nore co~sUirer-oriented uses
uf the waterfront than as a park1ng lot for workers
ccmnuting to the shipyard. The parking problem is not
one of a lack of adequate spaces, but one of location
and circulation to and fran the parking spaces.
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION
~town Pbrt Orchard is characterized by a
;ignificant number of individuals who aggressively
'ursue business and development opportunities, and
;ho appear to genuinely work together in solving
'roblems. The marquee along the stor.e front is one
!Xample. This was establised some 11 years ago by a
ccal Improvement District (LID) process and cost
tpproximately !h40,000. t-bst businesspeople pay
'rom S300 to SSOO a year in amortizing the LID. The
·ecords and accounting on this process are
aintained by the City Clerk-Treasurer, and
pparently has proceeded over the years without any
ajor difficulties.
second existing organizational structure is the
brt Orchard Downtown Improvement Association, a
ubchapter S corporation composed of some 10 to 12
usinesspeople who organized themselves to invest in
pportunities in the downtown. Its first venture
as the acquisition and rehabilitation of the
uilding which now houses the theater. This group
s organized to take advantage of other
pportunities if they were feasible, such as the
:quisition of the vacant lot next to Cbok's
~licatessen, or a venture into the Howe Building.
1ird, it appears that in many instances when things
~ to get done, the business community meets and
lscusses the issue through an informal
;sociation. Advertising formats, hours, and other
:omotional activities are examples of this, all
'parently done on an ad. hoc and informal ~s~s.
1ere is a loosely established downtown assoc1at1on
1at apparently meets once a week or once a month,
) discuss downtown business ventures. During the
.udy period, the various downtown associations met
, consolidate and unify their energies for downtown
·vi tal ization.
•urth, there are activity commi ttecs
the same people involved in the
often composed
aoove organized
or loosely organized structures, who meet, plan, and
get things done on a special event basis. One
example is the Western Day celebratwn by a few key
individuals and attend~) by over 10,000 people as
tourists or visitors. Another is the waterfront
festival, Fathoms of Fun, that in the past was
organized by the Chamber, but is now out from under
its organizational structure, and appears to
function by committee. The festival and
celebrations present a substantial source of revenue
and revitalization energy if properly coordinated
and managed.
!V'hile there do seem to be organizations or groups
that accomplish tasks, such as: l) paying off an
LID; 2) promoting investment opportunities in the
downtown; 3) coordinating advertising and promotion;
and 4) managing special events, there really is no
mechanism to tackle more difficult or long-range
problems, such as implementation of a downtown
design and redevelopment plan. In fact, one
conclusion of the survey is that there is not a
clear recognition on a regular basis of exactly how
things do or can get done in the downtown, and what
are specific problems. The process is dependent
upon a small group of individuals deciding that
something must happen, and then they themselves get
it done through their own energy and generally
without some recognized plan. This is an excellent
way to solve most minor problems, but a more
difficult problem or a more complex goal requires a
more systematic approach. Volunteerism works on a
short term basis, but produces a 'burn-out' effect
over time for most individuals, no matter how
dedicated.
Other suggested improvements and features for
downtown resulting from interviews are as follows:
• specialty shops including a jewelry store, an
ice cream parlor, a bakery on the waterfront,
a knick-knack shop, a bed and bath shop;
• painting the marquee;
• specialized pursuit of boater, marina trade;
• establish Bay Street as a one-way street;
• facilities and activities to attract the
Virginia V;
• encourage and expand the street fairs, farmers
market and festivals held downtown;
• restore the Sidney Hotel;
• increased community support for the downtown;
• installation of a telescope on the boardwalk;
• attracting "spin-off" activities associated
with Bremerton conventions and conferences,
such as the National Square Dance Convention
in 1984;
•
•
clean up storefronts, adding
and other decorations;
increased waterfront activities;
flags, flowers
• small gift shops unique to Port Orchard;
• tourism activities unique to Port Orchard;
• reduce the attitude of no parking when in fact
there is ample parking space;
• more downtown activities;
• bed and breakfact facilities on Sidney Hill
and in the Sidney Hotel, with a quality
restaurant;
• permanent parking for shoppers;
• a waterfront park for waterfront activities.
PARKING SURVEY
In January 1983, staff rrenbers fran Kasprisin-Pettinari
Design interviewed ferry camuters bet\t.leen Port Orchard
and Brerrerton as well as conducted a parking lot
occupancy survey for the area north of Bay Street in
the do.vnt.cwn area. While acknowledging that winter
travel and parking patterns may differ substantially
frcrn sl.l!Ttrer season, they do indicate the local pattern
of carmuter and shoptJer activity. Findings of the
ferry users survey and parking inventory indicate that:
• the majority of ferry use is by those ccmnuting to
'WOrk, with the vast rre.jority of those cannuters being
errployed by the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
• conmuter use is dispro[X)rtionately heavy at the
rrorning and evening "rush hours"
• slightly rrore than half of the ferry users cc:mrute
daily via the ferry and park at or near the ferry
terminal; the remainder are dropped off and picked up
or walk to the terminal
• the [)a..mt.cwn and the Annapolis terminals share equal
pro[X)rtions of camuter travel
• conmuters indicated that adequate parking space
currently exists on the Port Orchard waterfront
• sufficient levels of shorter term parking currently
exist for shopping activity during the winter rconths
• the majority of commuters indicated a willingness to
use public transit if it were provided (and provided
at convenient and frequent intervals)
• one-way carrnuter passenger traffic frcrn the ferry
system totals approximately 1,600 people per clay with
Anna[X)lis and Dc:1.mtawn sharing the load equally
The vol~.DTe and direction of overall pedestrian and
vehicular rrovenents to iilld through the study area are
~rtant considerations. Besides being an issue of
safety they also contribute to or diminish the overall
quality of the use of the area for any reason. The
study team has and will continue to (X)Qrdinate with
others resp:msible for planning and .i.rnplerrenting
traffic and transit .i.rnproverrents in the study area.
With proper (X)Qrdination this plan will serve as a
guide to Kitsap Transit Authority regarding the
location of future transit stq:>s, passenger shelters,
and van and bus turnouts.
18
2 THE PROJECTS ...
DESIGN
RECOMMERDATIORS
l'he urban waterfront of Port Orchard, from the
NPstern city l1mit to Annapolis, should be perceived
~s one integral corrununi ty resource. This waterfront
~rovides water access, diverse places for economic,
;ocial and recreational activities, and exists as u
:ontinuous natural feature linking the many upland
'places' together.
[n order to illustrate this resource,
;nd potential for the community, and
~hich it can unify the upland
levelopment of Port Orchard, this
)resent two levels of recommendations:
its importance
the manner in
or shoreline
chapter wi 11
e an OVERVIEW of the project with generalized
DI'SIG'l GUIDLINES; and,
e site specific DESIGN RECXW1ENDATION5 .
'he Guidelines and recommendations are highlighted
>Y graphic translations depicting projects which
~ould be constructed over the next few years.
:n order to clearly describe reccmrendations, the
werall project area is segrrented into DESIGN
liSTRicrs. Each district is defined by either a
>hysiographic feature, a collective image and/or
rrouping of activities. These districts should prove
>eneficial as m:magerrent tools, during implerrentation.
:ach district is defined according to physical
·haracteristics and existing and proposed uses. Land
.se reCO'I'fl'endations identify a primary or daninant
ctivity for each district as an intent or direction
or the future and do not exclude other existing
ctivities not related to the primary use. The
bjectives of the recornrendations are to encourage a
larification of activity for each district and better
elate future uses to the waterfront.
i r
i
I
i
/I
J /
n
overview
CHARACTERJSTICS
Activity District A Present Use Recommended Use
CITY ENTRY PRIMARY LS E:
• water related e vacant land • water related/
• water dependent • light indus-water dependent
• water view trial commercial and
• forested uplands • marine sales, industrial uses
moorage, boat such as boat
repair sales, repair, -----:_.:::.:..::::.-"::.....::.:. ~-= ·--=~l
' r-tni
I i. i I
I t I
! I
I
I I ' I I
l •
I
I
Activity District B
CITY 1-W..L
• highly visible
Activity District C
SIDNEY HILL
• higher ele-
vation
e significant
unique struc-
tures
• dominant loca-
tion
• on a 'bench' of
topography
Activity District D
a::MMERCIAL CORE
• linear building
development
• one and two
storey build-
ings
• retail commer-
cial
• adjacent park-
ing area on
north side
• primarily on
filled tide-
lands
• general comrn-
ercial
• auto sales
• water access
(launch ramp)
• Goverrunent
• residential
• religious
• office comm-
ercial
• cultural/arts
• retail/
office/
service
• financial
• dining/enter-
tairunent
J'OCX)rage, con-
struction and
landing
PRIMARY lEE
• Goverrunent
PRIMARY lEE
• residential
hotels (bed and
breakfast)
• Ancillary Uses:
-religious/semi
public
-cultural/arts
-residential
-office comm-
PRIMARY ill E:
• retail/office/
service
• Ancillary Uses:
-tourism activ-
ies
-community
civic and
cultural uses
• open air market
• festivals
Activity District E
MMJNA/WATER ED3E
• open and cover-• b.::lat moorage
ed moorage • transport-
• sewage treat-ation(ferry)
ment facility • parking
• views of • sewage treat-
Sinclair Inlet rnent
and naval ship-• public water
yard front access
• rock rip-rap
along water
edge
PRIMARY lEE:
• marina/water
related-water
dependent uses
• Ancillary Uses:
-visitor
facilities
-community,
cultura 1/ civic
facilities
\ctiv1ty District F
XXJN'I'(WN fJ\S T ENTRY
• narrow passage
• steep upland
bluff
e no pedestrians
ctivity District G
:l1MERCIAL AREA
• upland bluff
• pavement,
autos, signs
• no pedestrians
• filled tide-
lands
~ti vi ty District H
PRIMARY lS E:
• (waterside) • residential
-residential
• (upland side)
-general comm-
ercial/office
-residential
PRWARY LEE:
• auto dealer-• general commer-
ship cial
• general commer-
cial
• vacant
comrne rei a 1
• residential
ST BAY CXMMERCIAL AREA Plill1ARY tBE:
• upland bluff/
residential
uses
• pavement,
signs, autos
• filled tide-
lands
• no pedestrians
• general
commercial
• office
• dining/enter-
tainment
• financial
• commercial
retail
• office
•
, I/ --
·J' r 1 1 I I . ' , I ,
I I Ill ~ ' I I "i I
'' I I
1:
,
1
; /r ,,,
Activ1ty DJstrict I
fVW AVENUE
• water edge is
higl.ly Vlsible
• no waterfront
land
• upland bluff/
residential
/
II
• open space
e residential
DESIGN GUIDELINES
PRIMARY lS E:
e open space
e Arlcillary Uses:
-residential
D
lJl!O CJ _____ _g___~-~---------
Design Guidelines which are common to or appropriat~
for all Design Districts are summarized below as th~
FIR3T STATEMENT OF ACTION. These apply to public and
private properties and buildings and indentify image,
circulation, and community-wide waterfront improve-
ments.
l
I~mage
1 PJBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES THRCXJGrK)l)T THE
~ AND WATERFRONT SHYJLD BE IMPROVED
THRCXJGH LANIECAPING AND IMPROVED MA.JNI'ENANCE.
2 LANIBCAPE THE PRCDECT AREA ruBLIC THORCUGHFARES
WITH TR'::ES , SHRUB3 AND GROUND COVER TO HIGHLIGHT
THE FOLI.DWING:
• entrances to the downtown area;
• specific buildings and groups of buildings of
cultural, historical or architecturual
significance;
• views to the waterfront; and, ter-
ritorial and Sinclair Inlet views.
3 UNIMPROVED OR PUBLICLY UNDER-UTILIZED
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ALONG THE WATERFRONT
SHOULD BE RETURNED TO PUBLIC USE, PAR-
TICULARLY ALONG STREAMS, AND WHERE PUBLIC
ACCESS CAN BE PROVIDED TO THE WATERFRONT.
'•J I . ·~ : if!, 11 lifi
•!i ,,\j
''' I I
' I I
I I
4 BUILDING STRUCTURES THRCUGHOUT THE STUDY AREA
SH:XJLD BE REHABILITATED TO MEE'I' LOCAL BUILDING
CDDES.
5 BUILDING STRUCTURE> HAVING SI~IFICANT
AROiiTECI'URAL AND/OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
SHOULD BE REHABILITATED IN A MANNER REFLECTING,
PS MUCH AS KSS IBLE, THEIR ORIGINAL APPEARANCE
AND DETAIL.
6 THE PORI' ORCHARD I:XJ.JN'l'(J,IN CDRE SOOULD BE
RENOVATED AS A HISTORIC MARINE CENTER REFLECTING
FDRl' ORCHARD'S HISTORY AND ARCHITECI'URAL HERITAGE.
Circulation
7 THE CITY S HOLJIJ) INTEGRATE REVITALIZATION PI.AN3
\VITH KI'ISAP TRJ>N3 IT REGARDING PlATFORM:; AND BLE
CIRCUlATION ROlJ7ES •
8 THE CITY SHOULD EXPEDITE THE PORT ORCHARD
BY-PASS ROUTE AS A MEANS OF REDUCING
DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
g A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHOULD BE DEVELOPED
ALONG THE WATERFRONT, ON PUBLIC AND PRI-
VATE PROPERTY, CONNECTING SHORELINE AND
UPLAND ACTIVITY CENTERS.
1jQVISUAL ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT FROM
.1J UPLAND AREAS SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND
ENHANCED, PARTICULARLY THROUGH PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
llWATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE PRIORI-
TIZED ACCORDING TO: WATER DEPENDENT AND
WATER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
recommendations
~lsign district
AREA DEBJRIPI'ION
Approaches to Port Orchard both on Highway
no. 160 from the west and Beach Road/Bay
Avenue from the east are along the water and
are characterized by views of Sinclair Inlet,
the City of Bremerton, and the Olympic Moun-
tains. The western entry, Highway no. 160,
parallels marina and moorage facilities on
the north and wooded, sparcely developed
uplands on the south. From Pottery Avenue
Blvd. along Bay Street to the Cline Avenue-
Kitsap Street intersections, the entry to
Port Orchard is highlighted by older wood
shingled waterfront structures on pilings,
asphalt parking areas, the city government
buildings, the Sidney Hotel and some wooded
uplands.
Potential assets of the CITY ENTRY DISTRICT
include older wood frame, wood shingled
waterfront structures with local archi-
tectural significance; the Sidney Hotel
historical landmark, prominent on Sidney
Hill; and one-and two-story Bay Street
building facades, commercial in use.
City Entry
Required Actions ...
REVITALrzE THE ENTRY 'ro FQRI' ORCHARD THROOGH
LANI:SCAPING, BUILDING RES'IDRATION AND ENHANCED
PEDESTRIAN SPACES.
ENQJURA.GE PRIVATE REDEVEWPMENT OF ~VATERFR<Nr
PROPERI'IES WHIG! ENHANCE HATER DEPENDENT-RElATED
MARINE ACI'IVITIES •
\1\\\\"" J
"'''•t-e-~~.pcl±: ....... ,
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Visual Entry
Improve the visual entry to downtown
through expansion of the walkway system.
This should include marine oriented view-
ing platforms; installation of quality
designed entry signs and new pedestrian
1 ight standards with banners; provisions
of efficiently laid out screened parking
areas; and, retention of upland wooded
areas along the south Bay Street right-
of-way.
Restore and safeguard the character and
use of the Horluck Transportatlon build-
ings west of the Gull Oil property.
Landscape the Bay Street-Cline Avenue-
Kitsap Street-Water Street intersection
with trees and shrubs to create an
arrival-space: an outdoor room framed by
trees and existing buildings with views of
Sidney Hotel and of Sinclair Inlet.
Street trees should be a minimum of 3 1/2
inch caliper at planting. Improve the
pedestrian areas within this space with
new sidewalks, a clear and safe separation
of automobiles and people, new light
standards and banners.
Developers of the proposed marina develop-
ment adjacent t~ the De Kalb Street
waterway should construct an attractive
landscaped buffer between parking and
public waterways; and design the marina
support structures to be architecturally
compatible with surround1ng older bull d-
ings and piers.
Future development of the Gull property
adjacent to the De Kelb Street waterway
should meet the following criteria:
• development of a pedestrian walkway along
the northern and eastern edges of the site,
connecting to Bay Street;
e cooperative development with the City of
Port Orchard and the Port of Bremerton of a
covered viewing shelter and visiting boat
litering float at the northeast corner of
the property;
.;----
·_j
new _walk
• landscaped screening of all
service areas from Bay Street
waterfront walkway;
parking
and from
and
tne
• orientation of new buildings to enhance 'he
idea of a CITY ENTRY to Port Orcht' rd,
including use of setbacks and stagq<'J:c•rJ
building configurations
new trees
city ha.ll
landscape screen
CITY ENTRY
view east
Water Street
The Water Street riqht-of-way ,1nd roat launch ramp
shoL:Jrl he UEXJraded to include a lanlscaped buffer
and rarsc><l concrete srdewalk srx ( 6) feet min1mum in
width. At the intersection of the \Jater Street
walkway and Bay Street, the walkway should J:::.e
developed as a pedestrian plaza, reclaiming the full
extent of the right-of-way. This plaza will then
J:::.ecome a design component of the lanscaped CITY
ENI'RY.
Waterfront Re-use
Private landowners should recycle waterfront
lands and buildings to enhance and take
advantage of the visitor industry growth
objectives for downtown by introducing addi-
tional dining and entertainment facilities
along the water's edge. The building group
between the De Kalb Street waterway and Water
Street north of Bay Street could be redevel-
oped as restaurants, drinking and entertain-
ment facilities with ancillary specialty
shops. Redevelopment should follow these
critera:
• take advantage of the proximity to the De Kalb
Street waterway visitors anchorage, the
proposed private marina, the visual impact of
the CITY ENTRY, and the Water Street boat ramp;
• recycle the existing wood frame build-
ings to restore the scale, proportion,
material and facades of the buildings
as they were when first constructed.
• provide low landscape buffers between the CITY
ENTRY and off street parking areas, thus
contributing private landscape materials to
the public landscape improvements forming the
CITY ENTRY image.
AREA DESCRIPriON
The Sidney Hill district is bounded by
Prospect street on the west and north, Sidney
Street on the east and Ki tsap Street on the
south. The district is characterized by its
higher topographic elevation above Bay
Street, the historic Sidney Hotel, a grouping
of older quality residential structures along
Kitsap Street, the church complex at the
intersection of Kitsap and Sidney Streets
with its predominant steeple and building
form, the Port Orchard Museum, the community
library and a private art gallery. Sidney
Hill is highly visible from the western
approach to the city, from the water and the
immediate downtown area.
·<. '' 1 rrr
SIDNEY HOTEL-IDLL CLIMB AREA
Sidney Hill
Required Actions ...
fETABLlSH SIDNEY HILL l>S A HlS'IDfUC DlSTRIC'T.
ENCOUAAGE VlS I '!DR RELATED RESIDENTIAL AND ARTS
AND CRAF'IS lBES 'ID DEVELOP WITHIN THE SIDNEY
HILL AREA, CDMPLEMENTING EXlSTJ:m RESIDEN'l'lAL
lBES I THE SIDNEY H:YrEL, AND THE AR'1S AND
aJLTUAAL FACILITIES ALREADY IN EX1STENCE.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Visual Character
Private li>nds and buildings should be
I'Mintained and upgraded in a manner which
retains the scale and materials of the
existing older structures.
Due to the prominent location of SIDNEY HlU,
regarding views of the city, private
landowners should enhance existing landscapes
in a manner creating a distinct Sidney Hill
image.
The City of Port Orchard should upgrade, in a
phased and timely manner, Prospect Street,
Bank Street, and Frederick Street with
textured paving materials, landscaping, and
lighting fixtures appropriate with the
architectural period of the Sidney Hotel.
This area is prominent both physiographically
and as a key in the local visitor industry.
Hill-Climb and "Fort Hill" Lookout
A walkway and stairs connecting SIDNEY Hill. (and the
Sidney Hotel) to the waterfront via Bay 3treet and
the South Kitsap Bank property should be developed
with public and private sector cooperation. A
public right-of-way exists along the bank between
Bay Street and the waterfront, designated as Orchard
Street. The Sidney Hill lookout, historic "Fort
Hill", should be developed by the city on public
right-of-way. The lookout should include the
following:
• a pedestrian platform for viewing,
• an authentic naval cannon for ceremo-
nial use; historically, the cannon from
the Russian ship (Polytofsky) occupied
this site and once gave a twenty-one
gun salute to u.s. naval ships entering
the Inlet.
• an information sign indicating
significant places of interest, and
elements comprising the view shed
mountain peaks, battleships).
location,
physical
(such as
The City of Port Orchard in cooperation with
Chevron, Inc. should develop the SIDNEY HILL walkway
and hi ll-cl irnb alonq the northeast boundary of the
31
Cnevrnn r>r''l"''rt.y. PcnnsuL> 'l'lrE' building owners
could I' :-t ici[XJte rc'gardinJ ,,ppropria:e wall
graphics and hi(jhl ight lighting.
This sketch portrays the Sidney Hill-climb
and a recycled Peninsula Glass building
complete Wl th tr 1m paint and new sign.
AREA DESCRIPI'ION
The commercial core of Port ·urchard extends
along both sides of Bay Street between Cline
Avenue and Seattle Street. The core area or
downtown is bounded on the north by Sinclair
Inlet; on the south by a steep bluff, the
base of which is located immediately to the
rear of the southside Bay Street buildings;
to the east by a point of land at which the
bluff meets the Inlet; and on the west by a
similar condition of topography and Sinclair
Inlet in the vicinity of Pottery Avenue Blvd.
The building pattern is a double loaded
corridor configuration oriented east to west.
Open space consisting of filled tidelands
forms the core area waterfront and is
presently utilized for port and downtown
parking.
//
,--t L_'
\
I
ldlup 'tr"l
Downtown
Required Action..
THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SHOULD BE RE-
VITALIZED INTO A HISTORIC MARINE-ORIENTED
CENTER WHICH IS THE FOCUS OF PORT ORCHARD' S
COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES.
0 .so 100 150
~-....... k... .. _,.. ....... :.~ 1'
NORTH
.: I
l. . ~
' I ---~ 1 · ---------
potentially contributing bist9riy and-or architectural bUildings
I !
33
Building Facades
Within the Bay Street shopping district, two
significant building facades have emerged as
the dominant or most apparent architecture
representing Port Orchard's downtown. The
first, the Bay Street facades themselves, are
characterized by a streetscape architecture
with white stucco-faced one-and two-story
wood framed buildings and a dark brown wood
picket style marquee running the length of
Bay Street between Frederick and Harrison
Streets. The second facade exists along the
rear of the north Bay Street buildings and is
oriented toward the city and port parking
lots, the passenger ferry terminal and
Sinclair Inlet. These facades are charac-
terized by a mixture of building shapes,
setbacks, materials, colors and styles.
The existing height, width, parapet design,
cornice and fascia elements of over 50% of
the Bay Street buildings reflect 1914 to 1930
period architecture. In order to improve the
overall image of the downtown district,
refurbishing each of these facade types will
be necessary; renovation and remodelling can
be achieved through planned and cost-
effective steps.
This section acknowledges the difficulties
for the individual property owner of
financing and implementing architectural
restoration and rehabilitation of older
buildings. With respect and appreciation for
past rehabilitation efforts, these recommen-
dations seek to define a longer term archi-
tecturally relevant image for Port Orchard
which is achievable through local and private
initiative.
In order to accomplish this,
reoommendations are put forth within
short, intermediate, am long
scheduling and financing.
the following
the context of
term project
• preferably in groups of two or more
facades, reemphasize the parapet wall
construction of each building, high-
lighting the applicable cornice ~nd
fascia design, original siding mater1al
and window trim details:
• as a short term application, paint the parapet
walls, door and window trim with bright
highlight colors reflecting the proportion and
architectural lines of the original details;
• retain the marquee with the following
alterations:
-paint the marquee a lighter color,"
-eliminate vertical plckets
-eliminate knee brac1ngs
The Bay Street buildings, both north and
south side, require substantial exterior code
rehabilitation to improve both their physical
and economic lives. Roofing materials,
siding replacement and painting, window
replacement, foundation repair are all neces-
sary on many of the Bay Street buildings with
particular emphasis on south Bay Street.
The southside Bay Street buildings for the most part
rely on Bay Street for shopper access, advertising,
and service. Continued use of Bay Street for
deliveries and shopper access will continue. The
logistics of delivery hour coordination with store
hours and prime parking demand can be developed to
alleviate significant problems.
The northside Bay Street buildings have delivery and
employee access from the northside, relieving
somewhat the service vehicle pressures from Bay
Street. Design proposals will retain the service
access along the northside and incorporate it into
new development and transit recommendations.
Bay Street North
While a return to a historic image is a
critical recommendation for Bay Street South,
Bay Street North, historically the rear side
of the buildings, requires a different, even
novel, yet related approach. Recommendations
for Bay Street north include:
• regardless of approach, Bay Street
North rehabilitation should be comple-
mentary to the Bay Street South
program. In that context, its design
image should reflect the historical
architectural building elements found
along both sides of Bay Street.
• due to its evolved "rear door" image,
and viewed in terms of its increased
visibility to the waterfront, marina,
cruise ships, etc., a contemporary
approach to a new facade treatment with
expanded shopper protection and conve-
nience is justified. Two options to
provide this contemporary yet histori-
cally reflective design treatment are
demonstrated below:
-A facade marquee, designed to reflect
the parapet walls, windows and materi-
als of Bay Street; many options are
possible and serious design review
should accompany the professionally
designed facade marquee.
-Marquee extensions, designed perpen-
dicular to the existing facade to
provide covered and semi-enclosed
pedestrian areas connecting the
parking lots to the shop entrances;
these marquee extensions, coupled with
parking lot landscaping, will soften
the chaotic facade treatment along the
water side of Bay Street North.
Both options may occur in tandem or they may
occur as separate options.
Parking Lot Landscaping
Regardless of the architectural treatment of the Bay
Street North buildings, an immediate and high impact
project to revitalize the open parking lot is a
landscape effort which includes trees, shrubs and
ground cover at appropriate locations. Planted in
such a manner to reduce view blockage of the water,
the trees and other landscape elements will provide
an attractive 'from the water' view of Port Orchard.
City Center Plaza
As a mr'ctns of restructurinCJ the interior of the
downtown core in a rlBrliJer which nny increase its
economic vitality am physical sense of "place", a
commum ty plaza or towncenter is recommende<i
immediately north of the Bay Street shops between
Sidney and Harrison Streets. This 'C1ty Center
Plaza' is located on private property and is
designed to max1m1ze the land area between the
former post office building, the liquor store and
the northside Bay Street buildings.
.. r lxJotl1.<
The City Center f'J 2.za lx-cowes a focal point around
which the farmers market, the South Ki tsap Transit
Authon ty bus-stops, the Bay Street Shops service
road and festival facilities all can be integrated·
The space is rlesigned as a multi-purpose use area
containing both pennanent and temporary structures.
The overall objective of the City Center Plaza is to
organize and restructure the open space in that area
for increased economic and =mmunity benefits
without sacrificing valuable parking and service
facilities.
\
View West
F'FSTIV Air MARKET AREA
Cri.te1ia for development of the City Center
Plaza include:
• Use
--a farmers IIBrket, flexible and infonnal in
operation;
-flea market, auctions and antique sales;
-festival activities such as music, dancing,
exhibits, displays;
-art shows, fashion shows, outdoor luncheons
and banquets catered by local restaurants;
-perfoming arts, including regularly
scheduled and visitor-oriented showings. A
local theme play could be developed,
utilizing local history and personalities, as
a special feature for marine related tour
packages.
• Configuration anrl struC"tures
·-farmers market lx:oth <Jrea is a linear space,
east to west, und has two basic functions: 1)
lxx:>th area for the fanners market; and, 2)
parking during non-market hours for employee
and merchant use;
-two options are recommendec for a
climate protected multiuse structure:
1) a seasonally erected tent or
fabric structure, of quality design,
which is erected in the spring and
dismantled in the fall; for use by
festival activity groups, auctions,
musical groups and could contain space
for temporary as well as permanent
seating areas; 2) a permanent struc-
ture, semi-enclosed for use year
round. This structure should be
designed as a flexible facility, with
wall systems capable of being opened
to the outdoors to expand the
capacity.
CITY CENTER
In llpri l
servHl<J in
1983,
pa::-t
the 1 mpact of
facilities on
substaJttlal.
Transit Options-Impacts
Kitsap Transit began operation,
the Port Orchard community. The
transit authority routes and
the downtown core district is
In order to take advantage of this service, the
follow1ng recommendations are included for
incorporation into the downtowr· core district plan:
• as an intennediate measure, the plan will
accommodate a turn-around at the northern
terminus of Sidney Avenue and incorporate
landscaping into the turn around facility.
• each of the transi t-platfonn locations and
maneuvering routes through the downtown impact
the CITY CENTER PLAZA -FAR-1ER3 MARKEr area
and the Bay Street North
consequently the CITY CENTER
adjust to the transit facilities
similar to the following options:
service
PLAZA
in a
road;
should
manner
A covered pedestrian walkway connecting
the transit stop and the ferry terminal
could greatly enhance passenger comfort
and, possibly, ridership attraction. A
pedestrian viewing platform and passenger
drop-off/pick-up area could accompany the
covered walk along the water's edge.
.AREA DF.SJRIPriON
The MARINA-WATER EDGE district extend;o along
the downtown tidelands between SeatU e Street
east to Pottery Avenue; and, 1n d l!orU:-south
direction, from the harbur line to the rear
of the nort. ,side Bay Street bui I dings. This
district is characterized by extensive boat
moorage facilities on the water and upland
paved parking areas.
inlet view r grandstand
I
~---~>--.._
bay st walk "'. · . · -~,
Required Action. ..
DEVELOP A MA1:n Nl: EVENTS FACI L lTY WITH
SPECIAL MUORJ\CE ON 'l'Ht: Wf•.TE:HFWlNT AS A.
SIGNIFICANT r·r:JRT-BOATlNC r\'J'TI~ACTlON ..
LIMIT DEVELot'f'lENT w i T!l l N TH l ~:~ 1\REJ\ TO LOW
INTENSITY u~·t:s AND l<E.';'~'EJCTED VEHJCULAH
ACCESS.
r unique sbips
Marina
Water Edge
r exhibit
l
Marina
e in the event of future mnrina expansion by the
Port of Bremerton, allcx::ate Water Street and
Port Street as potential access points for
boaters; Water Street would be a priority
access point.
e accomnKrlate future marina expansion to the
west of the existing marina;
e develop a unique ships moorage facility
between the existing ferry tenninal and
Seattle Street; criteria for this facility
should include:
-a floating breakwall/visitors dock;
-public access to the floats;
-potential commercial cruise ship docking
area;
-suitable square footage on the floats for
small gatherings of people, i.e. tours.
Waterfront Wa.lkwa.y
The downtown waterfront walkway should extend along
the entire downtown water edge from Port Street east
to the Seattle Street right-of-way. Characteristics
of this walkway include:
e minimum six foot wide raised wooden walk and
wooden guardrail;
e pedestrian view area at Port Street;
e viewing tower with telescope on the roof of
the fanner sewage treatment facility;
e expanded boardwalk waiting area at the ferry
dock;
e pedestrian lighting, benches, information
signs and landscaping.
e gangway access points for the proposed unique
ships moorage area and cruise ship dock.
Connections To Waterfront
The waterfront walkway is connected to Bay Street
and adjacent uplands by the following pedestrian way:
e Port Street right-of-way: maintain the
right-of-way as a parking area integrated with
a protected pedestrian walkway; the surface of
the parking area can be pedestrian in
appearance, utilizing textured surfaces. A
pedestrian-only protected viewing area should
be established at the water's edge in
conjunction with the waterfront walkway.
Special features such as wooden bollards,
telescopes, and a flagpole with colorful
windsock would add to the use and attrac-
tiveness of the space.
e t tie Orchard Street rtght-o£-way should connect
ll1c Sidney Ill ll-Cl i mb to the waterfront;
landscaping and surface treatment will high-
li 9ht, identify and separate this walk from
the parking area.
e Sidney Avenue sidewalks should be extended to
the waterfront with greater emphasis placed on
the east side of the street; this side should
be incorporated with the tamers market area
and specialty shop complex (former post office
building) sidewalks. LarKiscaping again should
be an integral part of the sidewalk extensions
to 'soften' the parking lot impact.
• Harrison Street walkway from Bay Street to the
new service road immediately south of the
liquor store building should be improved.
V.'1nd sock ' ·OO.nk
.,,,.,'
'I,.'·:
Marine Events Facility
In order to maximize the use of the waterfront, its
views and recreation rotential, a corrununity facility
should be developed on the waterfront capable of
serving a diverse group of uses. Criteria for this
Marine Events Facility should include:
e Uses
-outdoor public seating;
-senior citizens activity area, enclosed;
-connection to the waterfront walkway;
including, ramp and stair access to the upper
Bay Street level;
-multi-purpose room for the performing arts,
civic meetings and exhibits, art shows,
dances and festival activities;
-outdoor exhibit area:the upper level deck at
the Bay Street grade should be utilized for
outdoor and seasonally covered exhibit space,
having good visibility from the waterfront
level and Bay Street.
40
e C"'llfitjUFltiun
-tile mi!XJmlun hciqilt c: lL<· f,Jci ], t y ,;huuld 11o:
excccd the hciC)LL r,J ihy :;t 1 ,,et;
-pc,lestrJanramps shcu!d tx rrnvidcci tc the
upper level,; of Lhc• Lwility front L),c luweJ
parking lot;
-Clccess from Bay S t.Y"ect slll'uld be provJCied to
the upper exhibit ancl vieW111CJ level;
-the building's west and north faces should r>e
stepped down from t~'' Bay Street level to the
water and parking lot, respectively;
Ill ( Jr i r 'JJt <J\ i 1 ;11
utltd<\>r :-;ei..Jt i110 <~rt\1~:
~'{' urit·ntr'd r1urt 1i t()
t r )\-Vtl ~d~-: t} H:: 1 )drk j 1 1q
·-:--;(:Tll c/1 {, i l .i z.c-ns cc·J .lur
tl10 f"(JSt, w1th uccess
vlidkw<~y and sep,tdted
park1ng areas;
1 {l, 1n· :~:: t dlitL~; shcu ld
tltl' ,,, tc'r mel west
l'OLld
to
fron;
l~c cri<·cted to
Ul<' waterfront
the wcslcrly
AREA DEBIRJPI'ION
The waterfront district which extends from
the Seattle Street right-of-way to the
Rockwell Street right-of-way is primarily
residential in use. A high bank between Bay
Street and the actual building structures
along the water coupled with a high bluff to
the south of Bay Street create difficult
vehicle and pedestrian access to waterfront
lands. The limitation of buildable lands,
sight lines for oncoming traffic also reduce
the potential for intensive use of this land.
Development Limit
• establish a maximum limit of residential units
for this area based in part on the number of
vehicles such units would generate;
• establish a safe pedestrian walkway
full length of the district
physically separated from the paved
Bay Street and its shoulders;
the along
which is
surface of
• maintain existing landscaping materials,
particularly large trees, to buffer
residential development from Bay Street
traffic noise; traffic noise will remain a
problem for this area and can not be
completely alleviated through landscaping.
• future long term use of this area offers the
following potential:
-open space community oriented,
passive park facilities;
waterfront
-continued low density residential development.
Downtown
East Entry
42
n,;,, d_·:l_: l'-"· .:cncL tt'lll f,,_; ·kwell Street to
B l acl'.J <wk (' 1 • l•P.i '"·'(~en Hi!)' :;treet and the
Wdtecfrt.JnL !1 LS rh<uacterized by general
commerciiil <'1;<.1 automobile de<1lerships, with
smaller comrnc.tc ial and residential structures
surrounded by vacant land. Vehicular access
is from Bay Street into adjacent parking
areas. Service access for the small commer-
cial plaza is on the waterfront side, and on
the Blackjack Creek side for Howe Motors.
Vehicular storage, both for parking purposes
and inventory stockpiles is a dominant fea-
ture of the district.
Land for future development exists along. the
waterfront immediately east of Rockwell Street.
Waterfront Walkway
.Private landowners should =perati vely develop a
segment of the waterfront walkway recommended to
connect clowntown to West l1ay and beyond. Design
recommendations include:
3
o a 1o,~aterfrcnt walkway, emphasizing waterfront
access;
o low screening of service and storage related
building and site functions from the
waterfront and walkway.
Highway
Commercial
Required Action ...
IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ADJACENT PARKING WITH
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING TREATMENT.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE
MONIES OR LAND FOR THE WATERFRONT TRAIL.
Landscape
In order to 1mprove the attractiveness of this area
while retaining visual access from Bay Street to the
automobile dealership and commercial plaza, the plan
recommends public and private joint landscape
efforts of the Bay Street right-of-way with street
trees. Private property owners should provide
landscaping around and within parking areas,
particularly along Blackjack Creek and the
waterfront.
.AREA mrem:Prl:ON
The WEST BAY DISTRICT is defined by Blackjack
Creek, Bay Avenue and Sinclair Inlet. The
area historically has been developed on
filled tidelands at the mouth of Blackjack
Creek. Dominating the district is the West
Bay Shopping Plaza containing small shops, a
drug store and a restaurant. Service access
for the complex is on the Sinclair Inlet
side. A parking lot and bank facility
complete the use of the land. The street
intersection to the south of the complex is a
major crossroads problem of the commercial
core compounded by a narrow bridge across the
creek. Both the West Bay Shopping Plaza on
the east side of the creek and Howe Motors to
the west utilize Blackjack Creek right-of-
way.
WestBay
Required Action ...
IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ADJACENT PARKING WITH
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING TREATMENT.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE
MONIES OR LAND FOR THE WATERFRONT TRAIL.
44
Blackjack Creek
Blackjac~k C'r-~··. 1. , J • ~t· lv.l() m:)ttr drtt.ir;rF:JC' J.:i\'1!-le.·
in the projt•{ {',j ( ·t j :Jl :Jl'~!c:rl(l ! )lit r· r1re~a c'oj j }11'
city. TI1e crc·c+ iec a f;igl;ificdnt fi~'h habitat •.Hhl,
providing spc1Wr•i r1q .ueas for salmon dfK1 tro11t. Jn
addition to i ls c•cnlcqical val uP, tlw cref~k ccf fcrr,
an attractive cc;mrnunity «menity CJITK)ng the
commercial lani m;r' activity surrounrling it. The
creek is a strong visual connection between uplanrl
neighrorhocds and Sinclair Inlet, making the creek a
community wide asset as a waterfront attraction and
special feature.
Pecornmendations for the creek are as follows:
6
• improve and enhance the water quality
Blackjack Creek to a level satisfar·tory
its fish habitat functlon and 3 tate
Washington standards;
e maintain ancl enhance the creek corridor
natural and passive open space area;
of
with
of
as il
• abutting uses should divert parking lot run
off and other contaminants away from the creek
drainage;
e landscape buffers should be planted between
the creek corridor and abutting uses;
,, 1r~dl kwc1y should be developed along
L>cJtll c;Ldes of Blackjack Creek which
,;,JJlflt:r.:l;; bciy Stleel Lo the waterfront
walkway;
CJ pcrlestri.m bridge shoulcl be
the creek to provide a
crossover.
constructed over
safe, attractive
Viewing Shelter
A v1ewing shelter, constructed out over the water
along the waterfront walkway, would provide an
excellent and protected viewpoint of the Inlet and
the naval shipyard. In addition, it would provide
an interim rest stop for walkers, particularly the
elde,ly, walking from the Veterans Home to downtown.
Waterfront Walkway
A bufferecl cln<J screcnerl waterfront walkway should he
d''vcloped illong tLe wuters et'Jr)(? from I3lackjilck Creek
east to Bay /\venue. The walkw<ly shoulo be screened
and landscaped and the existing seeded areas should
l:X! expandc>d to create a passive, neighl::x:Jrhcxxi
oriented small scale waterfront park. New trees
should be added to existing trees to establish a
natural canopy along the water. No significant view
blockage would occur.
The pedestrian walkway system
and upper neighborhoods would
the waterfront.
BLACKJACK C
from the high school
then be =nnected to
\ i
lnrb
II 1
)I
II
!!
v I
46
3 THE NEXT STEP ...
.,
STRATEGY
&
IlVlPLE.LVlEJITATIOJI
I ~ -=>:tf/1 I -f ~
;;;-
48
No 1 ist of project improvements, pol icy
recommendations, budgeted i terns, or program
approaches will automatically create results.
The recommended projects can only proceed
with community support, downtown business
initiative, private investment, and City
financial assistance, support, and leader-
ship. The City must know how these projects
11ill become real and the strategy must in-
:lude how the City will organize itself for
lCtion and how the projects will be financed.
!t was noted during the early planning stages
lf this effort that the business community
<as composed of many individuals with strong
:ommitment to the downtown and with a strong
;ense of civic pride. several informal
:ommittees have existed in recent years that
1ave accomplished the job when needed, on
;pecial events, particular projects, and
)roblems that would develop at random.
!owever, specific organization is lacking for
~he comprehensive improvement of the business
listrict and waterfront, and the City council
·equires representation or involvement in the
nformal groups that do exist. Things hap-
,en, and they do happen, but on an ad hoc
as is. The nature of the projects being
reposed in this document requires a continu-
ng and sustained City and business combined
ffort if results are to be achieved.
here are three basic approaches that could
e used to insure that the necessary leader-
hip and cooperation is maintained, involving
oth the City and the business community. Of
he three approaches, no one in and of itself
ill guarantee success; however, one par-
icular approach would strengthen the com-
unication and continuity so necessary for
nplementation. Each approach should be
ssessed and understood by the community.
:1ey are:
'TION A: Voluntary Downtown Improvement
Hnmi ttee
1der this approach, those individuals most
tterested in a particular project or
·ojects would organize themselves on a
'luntary basis and take responsibility for
ttinq the JOb done. The informal nature
and high degree of personal comrni tment that
typically accompanies this approach can lead
to prompt results, as evidenced by the vari-
ous special event programs that now occur in
Port Orchard. On the other hand, the long-
term effect1veness of this approach seems to
be limited by the energy levels of the mem-
bershi_p o~ ~he committees and the difficulty
1n ma1nta1n1ng a committee structure. As a
volunteer effort, it is not unusual to find
that individual interest ebbs and flows,
making continuity difficult. In addition,
more expensive and complex issues can remain
neglected. Communication and coordination
can be hampered because it is never certain
exactly who is responsible for what, and who
is involved in a particular project.
Volunteers can and should do a substantial
part of the proposed program, and their use
s~ol;lld be further encouraged. However, the
l1m1ts of such efforts should also be
recognized.
OPTION B: Downtown Development Task Force
Under this option, a task force would be
established by the Mayor with recommendations
on appointments coming from the City Council,
the Chamber of Commerce, and the downtown
business community, particularly the informal
g~oups now operating. Working in conjunction
w1th the Planning Commission, the task force
w?uld be responsible for recommending priori-
tles and policies of the city Council, as
well as taking an active role in developing
programs for implementation.
Such a task force would consist of both
property owners and local business operators,
as well as representatives from local busi-
ness, civic groups, the Port, and service
clubs. The chairperson of this group is of
particular importance, and ideally should be
an individual with unlimited drive and com-
mitment, and the ability to talk and listen
effectively to a wide range of interests and
perceptions in the community.
Given the substantial amount ot personal t1me
and effort that would be required, it is
usually recommended that a professional staff
person be assigned to work with the task
force. This would insure not only that cost
and attention would be directed toward the
improvement program, but also that necessary
technical information and support would be
available to the task force.
The staff person would be responsible for a
wide range of activities, including: acting
as secretary to the task force; assisting
local businesses and merchants in promoting
activities; planning, developing, designing,
and implementing redevelopment projects; and
researching and securing local, state, and
federal manpower and financial resources.
This staff person can be obtained by adding
to the assignments of an ~xisting City staff
person, such as the City Public Works Super-
visor; adding a new staff person to handle
these and other. planning and development
actions; or securing professional services
under contract from individuals or firms with
experience in downtown redevelopment plan-
ning, design, and management.
The task force approach is usually effective
in the beginning phases of the program when
extensive involvement is needed. Because of
its wide membership, it can be somewhat
cumbersome in implementation phases of a
program.
OPTION C: Port Orchard Downtown Development
CommlSSlOn
Under this approach, the responsibility for
initiating and sustaining improvement efforts
is a combined one of the property owners,
business operators, the Port, and the City.
Promotional and operational expenses, staff
or management assistance, and .project
financing is derived from bus1nesses,
property owners, and the City government.
The city government is not only support~ve,
with leadership coming from elected offic1als
and the staff, but provides financial assis-
tance by setting up the mechanisms necessary,
such as local improvement districts or busi-
ness and improvement assessments, and serving
as a conduit for state and federal funds
directed towards the downtown. Of course,
strong leadership and overall direction must
come from the business community. In
essence, the responsibility and leadership
for determining priorities, establishing
policies, and financing and implementing the
programs clearly rests with both the private
and public sectors.
This approach differs only in degree from the
approach discussed 1n Option 2. It is a more
formal arrangement, with a legal structure in
place with specific purposes and mandates.
Because of this, it is able to receive funds
and can direct management aspects of the
program. It differs only slightly from a
private corporation in its powers and abili-
ties and, of course, would be set up as a
nonprofit entity. This more formal body
would have a high profile, be task oriented,
and would work closely with the City and the
Port. This body is the recommended approach
for action.
A plan is no better than the ultimate
management of its direction, and the imple-
mentation of its recommendations. Management
of a plan does not just happen, but occurs on
a regular basis by an individual or individ-
uals whose responsibilites are clear. If the
City and business community pursue the third
organizational approach recommended, it is
important that individuals from the staff and
the elected body of the City, as well as the
leadership of the commission or committee,
closely coordinate activities.
In addition, professional services may also
be required as part of the project team to
manage the proposed projects. coordination
of the various state, federal, and local
financial resources is a must. The City
should develop an improvement program budget
for one particular project only after con-
sidering budgets and financial resources for
all the projects that are part of the total
redevelopment program. Scheduling, dollar
availability, appropriate use of a particular
funding source, and difficulty in obtaining
the funds and financial management all must
be considered in preparing the downtown
capital improvement program. It is recom-
mended that a management team emerge from
representatives of the commission, the City,
and whatever professional services need to be
retained by the City for the implementation
of this program.
Plans, if they are to be realized, cost
money. While many things can be done by
volunteer effort, and the business community
must reach into its pockets for its own
reinvestment of its facilities, public
financing or the use of public financing
mechanisms must be explored and achieved if
many of the recommendations in this program
are to become fact. Financing mechanisms
ava1lable to assist the business people and
the City government in rev1talizing the
:::ommercial and waterfront district must be
explored and utilized.
What follows is a brief description of those
local, state, and federal sources currently
available that may help achieve this goal.
While federal resources are becoming in-
creasingly scarce, the City should assume
that there is help to be achieved in this
area. It is true that private development
financing primarily must come from private
investment or entrepreneurial resources,
while public improvements will increasingly
derive from assessment or taxation devices
with assistance from the federal and state
governments. But public financial assistance
is available; and, in many cases, can be a
significant aspect of an improvement program.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
The purpose of this section is to describe
the various funding tools that are available
to the City to improve the downtown com-
munity. This section will describe only the
programs that are available and practical in
the context of the City of Port Orchard 1 s
Improvement Program.
The section is intended as a summary only.
Public Sector Project Component
Economic Development Administration, Public
Works Assistance Program:
Many communities wit~i~ an economi~ ~evelo~
ment district are el1g1ble to part1c1pate 1n
the Economic Development Administration
Public Works Assistance Programs and other
EDA funding. Most of these programs direct
funding towards such projects as:
A Making land suitable for industrial or
commercial use, or providing utilities,
access, and site preparation.
B Building facilities and providing equip-
ment for job training programs.
c Improving public facilities at airports
and harbors.
D Providing a very poor co~uni ty with . a
basic infrastructure that 1s a prerequl-
site to initiating or stimulating economic
development.
51
E Renovating inner city buildings for
special development purposes.
F Building or improving publicly-owned
recreational facilities to build up the
area's tourism.
G Improving the appearance of efficiency of
public facilities in run-down, congested
areas.
These types of projects are evaluated by the
amount and quality of the benefits that can
be expected from the federal investment. In
m~ny cases, Economic Development Administra-
tlon funds can be used as a mechanism for
improving the vitality and competitiveness of
the business district. However, it must be
noted that a commercial or waterfront project
may have a lower degree of profitability for
funding than an industrial project. The
Economic Development Administration program
may be used to construct streets, sewers,
water lines, and other necessary public
facilities directed towards improving eco-
nomic development opportunities. The program
has financed downtown and waterfront improve-
ment programs in other communities around the
state and the nation. While the Economic
Development Administration has been slated
for elimination in recent years by the
national government and its future is uncer-
tain, it does manage each year to receive a
budget, and continue to engage in funding
development improvement programs.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation:
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department
of the Interior, now referred to as Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Services (HCRS)
is an available resource for various elements
of the proposed program for Port Orchard.
Small parks, pedestrian amenities, trails,
and other such i terns can be assisted on a
50/50 matching basis. The availability of
funds should be pursued with the State of
Washington, as in most cases the State of
Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation manages and disburses the funds.
The City should have an improved parks and
recreation plan on file with the State Inter-
agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, and
this document should be submitted to them for
its inclusion within approvable projects in
the City of Port Orchard. Recent projects
funded by the Interagency Committee for
Outdoor Recreation include waterfront
improvements, riverfront parks, swimminq
pools, bike paths, play fields, trail sys-
tems, and other general parks and recreation
improvements.
Private Sector Project Component
Small Business Administration 7A Loan Guaran-
tee Program:
The Small Business Administration's 7A Loan
Guarantee Program can provide assistance to
small businesses in obtaining financing in
capital, fixed asset acquisition (including
equipment, land, and buildings), and lease-
hold improvements. Working capital includes
acquisition of inventory, financing receiva-
bles, and reducing trade debt. The SBA 7A
Program guarantees up to 90% of a loan made
by a commercial lending institution. The
business must contribute some equity, the
amount varying with the project and lender's
requirements.
For-profit businesses, particularly those who
are unable to obtain conventional financing,
can receive this loan guarantee assistance.
A small business, for this purpose, is
defined as a retail, service, and construc-
tion business whose sales do not exceed
$2, 000, 000; a wholesale industry whose sales
do not exceed $9.15 million; or a manufac-
turing industry whose employees do not exceed
250 people.
The program allows real estate loans of up to
25 years and working capital loans of up to 7
years. The rate for an SBA 7 A guaranteed
loan may not exceed the prime rate by more
than 2.75%. Loans may be for either a fixed
or variable rate. Collateral may include
personal assets; mortgages on commercial
land, buildings, or equipment; or assignment
of receivables.
Small Business Administration 503 Loan Pro-
gram:
The SBA 503 Loan Program is a fixed asset
financing mechanism which offers small busi-
nesses fixed interest loans at below market
rates. The purpose of the program is to
stimulate local investment, and to create new
or save existing jobs. Loan proceeds can be
used for building construction or acquisition
and rehabilitation, leasehold improvements,
and machinery and equipment. Not more than
5% of the total project cost can be financed
by ~he SBA, the maximum being $500,000. The
bus1n~ss ~ust provide a minimum of 10% equity
contr1but1on, and a private financing source,
usuallr a conventional lender, provides the
rema1n1ng funds.
The program is available to small businesses
planning an expansion or relocation. The SBA
size criteria for a small business in this
instance is broad: Any business qualifies
whose net worth is less than $6,000 000 and
whose profits after taxes are' under
$2, 000, 000 for the previous two years.
Businesses with a three-year track record are
desirable, but not mandatory. There are no
limitations on the personal net worth of the
business owners. The 503 Program is limited
to owners/users; developers do not qualify
for loans under this program.
The 503 Program is one which involves the SBA
and a private lending source. The private
lending source generally is a bank, although
seller financing is an option. The rate
ch<;irged on the private loan is set by the
pr1vate lender and may be fixed, variable, or
floating. The term is set by the lender,
subject to a ten-year minimum.
The SBA loan is subordinated to the private
loan and is offered at an interest rate of
.625% over the u.s. Treasury bond rate. The
rate fluctuates with the market and is set
once a month for loans that are closed in
that month. When a loan is closed, the rate
is fixed and remains constant over the life
of the loan. The loan's term is tied to the
life of the asset and is either 15, 20, or 25
years.
Internal Revenue Service:
The Internal Revenue Service is identified as
a resource in preparing funding strategies
available for downtown programs because of
specific portions of IRS law that provide
investment incentives. Specifically, invest-
ment tax credits ( ITC' s) help stimulate the
investment decisions regarding rehabilitation
of commercial and rental property structures.
A 10% investment tax credit is provided for
rehabilitation expenditures for all types of
businesses and productive buildings. Eligi-
ble buildings include factories, warehouses,
hotels, and retail and wholesale stores.
Only the rehabilitation expenditures, not the
acquisition costs, are el:{gible and, 1f more
than 25% of exterior walls are replaced, the
expenditures will not qualify. In addition,
the building must have been in use for at
least 20 years and the cost must be incurred
at least 20 years after the last rehabilita-
tion was completed. The credit is available
for qualified expenditures incurred after
October 31, 1978.
In addition, the Act amends the Internal
Revenue Code to make it clear that expendi-
tures with respect to which the five-year
amortization is elected under Section 191
(Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Struc-
tures) will be recaptured in accordance with
the provisions applicable to Section 1250
property (real property), rather than provi-
sions applicable to Section 1245 property
(personal property). This means that only
depreciation in excess of straight-line
depreciation is recaptured. The Act, how-
ever, makes such excess depreciation a tax
reference i tern. Further, the Act makes it
clear that long-term leases of historic
structures may claim the five-year amorti-
zation, if they incur rehabilitation expenses
and comply with various technical aspects of
the historic structure definition. These
elements of investment tax credits and
Revenue Act provisions present available
resources and positive cash-flow benefits to
businesspersons involved in rehabilitation or
improvements of existing structures. These
elements of the Revenue Code deserve atten-
tion and research by businesspeople in the
community and their particular accountants
and auditors.
Locally Initiated Mechanisms
Parking and Business Improvement Areas (SBIA):
In order to aid economic development and to
facilitate business cooperation, Washington
State law (RCW 35 .87A) authorizes all coun-
ties and all incorporated cities and towns to
establish Parking and Business Improvement
Areas for the following purposes:
A The acquisition, construction, or mainte-
nance of parking fac1li ties for the
benefit of the area.
B The decoration of any public place in the
area.
C Promotion of public events which are to
take place in public places in the area.
D Furnishing of music in any public place in
the area.
E Providing professional management, plan-
nlng, and promotion for the area incl~ding the management and promotion oi
reta1l trade activities in the area.
In order to assist. in the cost of achieving
thes~ purposes, c1t1es are authorized to levy
spec1al assessments on all businesses within
the . area spec~fically benefitted by the
park1ng and bus1ness improvement assessment.
The .c~ty, in accordance with the special
~rov1s1ons of the statute authority, may
1ssue and sell revenue bonds for some of the
c;:osts involved in the parking and business
1mprovement area.
To initiate such a process in the establish-
ment of an area, a petition must contain the following:
1 A description of the boundaries of the
proposed area;
2 The proposed uses and projects to which
proposed special assessments and revenues
shall be put, and the total estimated cost
thereof;
3 The estimated rate of levy of special
assessments with a proposed breakdown by
class of business and the assessment
classification to be used.
The initiating petition shall also contain
the signatures of persons who operate busi-
nesses in the proposed area which will pay
50% of the proposed special assessments.
The city, after receiving a valid initiation
petition or after passage of an initiation
resolution, shall adopt a resolution of
intention to establish such an area. The
resolution shall state the time and place of
hearings to be held by legislative authority
to consider establishment of an area. It
shall state all the information contained in
the initiation petition or initiating resolu-
tion regarding boundaries, projects and uses,
and estimated rates of assessment.
In establishing the special assessments, the
law has been amended to clarify alternatives
available to the program. The legislative
authority establishing such assessments may
make a reasonable classification of busi-
nesses, giving consideration to various
factors such as business and occupation taxes
imposed, square footage of the businesses,
number of employees, gross sales, or other
reasonable factors relating to the benefit
received, including the degree of benefit
received from parking.
The bill also elaborated on the purposes
served by the previous amendments and
refined, without limiting the scope of,
permissible purposes to ve served by the
business improvement area assessment
district. Specifically, it added for clari-
fication that assessments could aid general
economic development and facilitate merchant
and business cooperation which assists trade
through "providing professional management,
planning, and promotion of the area, in-
cluding the management and promotion of
retail trade activities in the area.11
The legislative authority of each city shall
have sole discretion as to how the revenue
derived from the special assessment is to be
used within the scope of that purpose.
However, the legislative authority can also
a{)point existing advisory boards or comrnis-
Slons to make recommendations as to issues
or the legislative authority, such as th~
C1 ty of Port Orchard, could create a new
advisory board or commission for such
purposes.
Local Improvement Districts:
Local Improvement Districts are widely used
in the State of Washington to provide for
public 1mprovements, particularly streets,
sewers, and water programs. A local improve-
ment district is formed and assessments are
applied to the property owners for the cost
of the improvements, based on the amount of
benefits they receive from the improvements.
Often these improvements are done on a
footage basis; i.e., the amount of property
frontage in the case of the street improve-
ment, or the direct cost of the water lines
or sewer lines that serve the project on a
pro rata basis.
In complex situations, often several assess-
ment roles are developed based on a formula
that attempts to determine a particular
property's benefit from the public improve-
ment. One example is the construction of
p~rking lots, the cost of those lots, and the
d1stance of the parking lots from individual
property and the nature of the property being
served.
A local improvement district was formed to
provide the initial marquee improvement in
the City of Port Orchard over a dozen years
~go: .A special assessment was added to each
1nd1~1dual' s tax liability in an amount
rang1ng from $200 . to. $400 annually for the
co~struct1on of th1s 1mprovement to visually
un1fy the downtown businesses on the main
thoroug~far~. As this initial local improve-
ment d1str1ct to a1d the downtown is near
completion in the payment of the initial
revE7nue obligation, the property owners may
a~a1n .want to consider this technique in
flnanc1ng some of the improvements in the
area.
Chapter 35.43 in the Revised Code of
Washington establishes authority for local
improvement districts and the requirements
for initiating the above proceedings.
Authority generally includes the construc-
tion, reconstruction, repair, or renewed
landscaping relative to the following:
1 Alleys, avenues, boulevards, lanes, park
drives, parkways, public places, public
squares, public streets, their grading,
regrading, planking, replanking, paving,
repaving, macadamizing, remacadamizing,
graveling, regraveling, piling, repiling,
~apping, recapping, or other improvements;
1f the management and control of park
drives, parkways, and boulevards is vested
in a board of park commissioners, the
plans and specifications for the improve-
ment must be approved by the park commis-
sioners before their adoption;
2 Auxiliary water systems;
3 Auditoriums, field houses, gymnasiums,
swimming pools, or other recreation or
playground facilities or structures;
4 Bridges, culverts,
approaches thereto;
and trestles
5 Bulkheads and retaining walls;
6 Dikes and embankments;
and
7 Drains, sewers, and sewer appurtenances
which as to trunk sewers shall include as
nearly as possible all the territory which
can be drained through the trunk sewer and
subsewers connected thereto;
8 Escalators or moving sidewalks, togethe c
with the expense of operation and main-
tenance;
54
9 Parks and playgrounds;
10 Sidewalks, curbing, and crosswalks;
11 street lighting systems, together with the
expense of furnishing electrical energy,
ma1ntenance, and operation;
12 Underground utilities, transmission lines· .
13 Water mains, hydrants, and appurtenances
wh1ch as to trunk water mains shall
include as nearly as possible all the
territory in the zone or district to which
w~ter m~y be distributed from the trunk
l~ne .ma1~s through lateral service and
dl.str1but1on mains and services;
14 Fences, culvert~, siphons, or coverings or
any other feas1ble safeguards along, in
place of, or over open canals or ditches
to protect the public from hazards
thereof;
15 Road beds, trackage, signalization,
storage facilities for rolling stock,
overhead an~ underground wiring, and any
other stat1onary equipment reasonably
necessary for the operat1on of electrified
public streetcar lines.
S~ction 35.43. 0~0 specifies action on peti-
tlon or resolut1on for such an ordinance to
establish an LID. A local improvement may be
ordered on~y by an ordinance of the City or
Town Counc1.l, pursuant to either resolution
or petition therefor. The ordinance must
receive the affirmative vote of at least the
majority of the members of the Council.
Charters of cities of the first class may
prescribe further limitations. In cities and
towns other than cities of the first class
the ordinance must receive the affirmati v~
vote of at least two-thirds of the members of
th~ Co~ncil if,, prior to its passage, written
ob]ect1ons to 1ts enactments are filed with
the City Clerk by or on behalf of the owners
?f the majority of the linear frontage of the
rmprovement and of the area within limits of
the proposed improvement district.
STATE FINANCr.AL .ASSIBTANCE
State Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, Community Economic Revitalrza-
tion Board (CERB)
The Community Economic Revitalization Board
is an independent commission established by
the State of Washington legislature, and
served by the staff of the Department of
Commerce and . Economic Development. It
provrdes low 1nterest loans through muni-
Cl.palltres for public improvements necessary
to strmulate pr~vate 1nvestment and job
creat1on. Establ1shed by the legislature in
1982 as the successor to the Economic
Assistance Authority, the Board is able to
~espond fairly rapidly in providing low
1nterest loans relating to specific project
actrons.
~uidelines for evaluating proposed projects
~nclude number of short-term and long-term
Jobs; ~elated.p~blic and private investment;
econom1c cond1 t1ons and unemployment in the
comm~nity; project feasibility; ability of
appll.cant to repay loan; and value to local
economically disadvantaged groups. The City
is the official applicant, although the Port
could qualify.
Washington State Community Development Block
Grant Program:
The Washington State Community Development
Block Grant Program assists in the develop-
ment a.nd. maintenanc~ '?f strong, independent
comm'l:lm t1es by PX:OVldlng funding for local
hou~1~g~ econom1c development, public
facll~tres, and comprehensive projects which
benef1.t low and moderate income citizens,
eliminate or prevent slums and blight, or
resolve problems which pose an immediate
threat to public health and safety.
The State of Washington's Community Develop-
ment Block Grant Program is a successor to
the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment's Entitlement and small City Community
Development Program, itself a successor to
the Urba_n Redevelopment Program launched by
the Hous1ng Act of 1949. Activities assisted
include:
1 Acquisition of property;
2 Construction, reconstruction, installation
of public works facilities and cited other
improvements;
3 Code enforcement in deterioriating areas;
4 Clearance, demolition, removal, and
rehabilitation of building improvements,
including interim assistance and financing
public or private acquisition for public
rehabilitation;
5 Rehabilitation of privately owned proper-
ties, including renovation of closed
school buildings.
6 Special projects directed to the removal
of material and architectural barriers
which restrict the mobility and accessi-
bility of elderly and handicapped persons;
7 Disposition of any real property acquired
pursuant to the program;
8 Provisions of public services;
9 Payment of nonfederal shares required in
connection with other federal grant and
aid programs undertaken as part of
activities assisted under this title;
10 Activities which are carried out by public
or private nonprofit entities, including
acquisition of real property; acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, rehabili-
tation, or installation of public
facilities, site improvements, and
utilities, and commercial or industrial
buildings or structures and other commer-
cial or industrial property improvements
and planning;
11 Grants to neighborhood based nonprofit
organizations, local development cor-
porations, or entities organized under
Section 3010 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 to carry out a
neighborhood revitalization or community
economic development or energy conser-
vation project in furtherance of the
objectives of Section lOlC; and
12 Provisions of assistance to private,
for-profit entities when the assistance is
necessary or appropriate to carry out an
economic development project.
Applications can be either single purpose or
comprehensive ones which include a variety of
activities whose sum is greater than the
impacts of the individual activities, and can
be single or multi-year in nature. Funding
is on an annualized basis, with the next
funding cycle to include the receipt of
applications October 1 of 1983.
Applicants are evaluated on the basis of City
need, project strategy, project results, and
benefit to low and moderate income indi vict-
uals. The City is the applicant for any
project.
The attached financing plan and
program identifies particular
strategy approaches to the
suggested
financial
recommended
projects.
All the above program opportunities are
appropriate for specific portions of the
downtown program. Each must be analyzed in
context of the entire plan.
Econani.c Recovery Tax Act of 1981
This act (Public law 97-34) creates significant new
incentives to encourage the preservation and reuse of
historic buildings. The law basically repeals the
existing preservation tax incentives and replaces them
with a 25 percent investroont tax credit. It also
replaces the traditional systen of depreciating real
property over its useful life with an accelerated cost
recovery system allCJWing investments to be recovered in
15 years. The new law also repeals the demolition
provision enacted in the Tax Refonn Act of 1976 that
denied accelerated depreciation for a building
constructed on the site of a demolished historic
building. Federal incare tax deductions are denied
for demolition costs or losses associated with historic
buildings.
Administration.
o National Park Service (NPS)
o U.S. Depart:rrent of the Interior
o Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
o U.S. Depart:Jrent of Treasury
Highlights.
o Only "qualifled" rehabilitation is eligible and
qualification should be determined prior to
commencing work;
o effective 1 January 1982;
o tax credits are as follows:
15% for structures at least 30 years old;
20% for structures at least 40 years old;
25% for certified historic structures;
o conditions for qualifications:
structure has been substantially rehabilitated;
structure was in use prior to beginning the
rehabilitation;
the building retains at least 75% of the
existing external walls;
The ITC (Invest:Irent Tax Credit) is deducted fran
the arrount of taxes owed in contrast to a deduc-
tion, which reduces a taxpayer's inccxre subject to
taxation;
o Eligibility for ITC includes the folla..ring:
ITC is available to both depreciably non-resi-
dential and residential buildings;
significant incentives exist for rental housing
in historic buildings;
owner-occupied taxpayer's certified building can
take ITC for incare-producing part of building;
the rehabilitation expenditures must exceed the
great of 1) the taxpayer's cost of the building
plus capital improvements less depreciation
(adjusted basis in property); 2) or $5,000,
within a 24-rronth period;
1 60-rronth pericd to rreet rehabilitation test
allowed when corrpletion is set in stages based
on architectural plans ca1pleted before the
rehabilitation begins;
in the case of certified historic structures,
the ITC can be deducted fran taxes owed and, the
entire cost of rehabilitation can be
depreciated. When coupled with the additional
5-percent credit, the tax savwgs are substan-
tial.
o Recapture:
if a rehabilitated building is held rrore than S.
years after rehabilitation there is no recapture
of ITC;
if a rehabilitated building is disposed of less
than or.e year after going in service, all of I'l'C
is recapturea.
Years Held % Recaptured
less than 1 yr. 100
1-2 yrs. 80
2-3 yrs. 60
3-4 yrs. 40
4-5 yrs. 20
5 or rrore 0
o Who gets the ITC?
owner (s) of eligible buildings;
an owner when a building is leased and used by a
tax exerrpt organization or govet11!tlel1tal unit
such as the University of Alaska;
a lessee when lessee incurs costs, the rehabili-
tation is catplete and the remaining term of
lease is not less than 15 years.
o Tax Preference
taxpayer investors in the rehabilitation are not
subject to a minimum tax penalty;
coupled with Straight-line Depreciation, ITC for
qualified rehabilitation eliminates recapture
program associated with earlier tax incentives;
EXAMPLE 1: OFFICE & APARIMENI' BUIIDING
Acquisition Cost
Land
Building
$ 40,000
110,000
Rehabilitation expenses
lst year cost recovery
($110,000 + $125,000) -15 years
1983 tax liability (based on adjusted
gross income over cost
recovery & other deductions)
25 percent ITC
$125,000 x 25 percent
ITC limit in 1983
$30,000 -$25,000 = $5,000.
$25,000 plus (90 percent x
5,000) = 29,500
ITC carried back to 1980
$31,250 -$29,500
Sales after 4 years
Cost recovery deductions over
4 years ($15,667 x 4 years)
.Adjusted basis of building + land
($150,000 + $125,000) -$62,668
Net profit for tax purposes
$350,000 -$212,332
Capital gains tax at 20 percent
$137,668 x 20 percent
Taxes paid due to recapture of ITC
$31,250 x 20 percent
$150,000
125,000
15,667
30,000
31,250
29,500
1,750
350,000
62,668
212,332
137,668
27,534
6,250
Source: Preservation News Suwlemmt; Noverrber, 1981.
EXAMPLE 2: HIQ!RISE BUILDING
Acquisition Cost
Land
Building
Rehabilitation costs
$600,000
600,000
Limited partners (120 @ $10,000)
Total project costs
1982 ITC (Total)
1982 ITC for limited partners
($1.5 million x 25 percent)
x 98 percent
1982 Deduction for easement donation
for limited partners:
$600,000 x 98 percent
Linu ted partner's tax treatnent
ITC
$367,500 -120
Tax savings due to ITC
Easerent donation deduction
$588,000 -120
Tax savings due to easerrent
donation: $4, 900 x 50 percent
bracket
Total Tax Savings 1st year
$3,063 + ($4,900 x 50 percent)
Reduction in $1,200,000 Basis attributable to
gift of $600,000 easement
$1,200,000
1,500,000
1,200,000
2,700,000
375,000
367,500
568,000
3,063
4,900
2,450
Adjustnent Basis "Before" easerrent gift:
Land $600,000
Buildings 600,000
l\djustrrent Basis "After" easerrent gift:
Land 200,000
Buildings 400,000
Source: Preservation News Supplerrent Noverrt>er, 1981.
Standards for Rehabilitation
In the words of the 1981 law, "consistent with the
historic character" of the structure and the district
in which it is located.
(1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide
a ccrnpatible use for a property that requires mim.rnal
alteration of the building, structure or site and its
envirorurent, or to use a property for its originally
intended purpose.
(2) The distinguishing original qualities or
character of a building, structure or site and its
envirorurent shall not be destroyed. The rerroval or
alteration of any historic material or distinctive
architectural features should be avoided when possible.
( 3) All buildings, structures and sites shall be
recognized as products of their 011'111 tirre. Alterations
that have no historical basis and which seek to create
an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
(4) Changes that may have taken place in the course
of time are evidence of the history and development of
a building structure or site and its envirorurent.
These change may have acquired significance in their
wn right, and this significance shall be recognized
and respected.
(5) Distinctive stylistic features or exanples of
skilled craftsmanship that characterize a building,
structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
(6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be
repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In
the event replacerrent is necessary, the new material
should match the material being replaced in carposi-
tion, design, color, texture and other visual
qualities. Repair or replacerrent of missing architec-
tural features should be based on accurate duplication
of features, substantiated by historic, physical or
pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs
or the availability of different architectural elements
fran other buildings or structures.
(7) The surface cleaning of structures shall be
undertaken with the gentlest rreans possible. Sand-
blasting and other cleaning rrethods that will damage
the historic building materials shall not be
undertaken.
(8) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect
and preserve archeological resources affected by, or
adJacent to, any project.
(9) Contemporary design for alterations and
additions to existing properties shall not be
d1scouraged when such alterations ~1d additions do not
destroy significant historical, architectural or
cultural material, and such design 1s corrpatible with
the size, scale, color, material and character of the
property, neighborhocd or envirorurent.
(10) Wherever possible, new additions or alterations
to structures shall be done in such a manner that if
such additions or alterations were to be removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the
structure ~uld be unirrpaired.
The Secretary of the Interior 1 s Standards for Evaluat-
ing Structures within Registered Historic Districts.
The NPS uses the "Standards for Evaluating Structures
within Registered Historic Districts" to determine
whether a structure within a registered historic dis-
trict is of historic significance to the district. The
SHPO also uses these standards to make certification
recarrrendations to the NPS.
( 1) A structure contributing to the historic
significance of a district is one which by location,
design, setting, materials, ~rkmanship, feeling and
association adds to the district's sense of tirre and
place and historical development.
(2) A structure not contributing to the historic
significance of a district is one that detracts fran
the district 1 s sense of time and place and historical
development; or one where the integrity of the original
design or individual architectural features or spaces
have been irretrievably lost; or one where physical
deterioration and/or structural damage has made it not
reasonably feasible to rehabilitate the building.
(3) Ordinarily structures that have been built
within the past 50 years shall not be considered
eligible unless a strong justification concerning their
historical or architectural merit is given or the
historical attributes of the district are considered to
be less than 50 years old.
PORT OF CALL PACKAGE
Puget Sound Port of Call Cruise
The potential is significant for an in-sound
commercial cruise ship package which would
make scheduled visits to a number of Puget
Sound waterfront communities.
This section describes the basic concepts and
strategy regarding the nature and packaging
requirements of such a cruise tour.
Objective
Develop a regularly scheduled cruise ship
"bed and breakfast" tour package utilizing
a select number of Puget Sound waterfront
communities as a new economic and cultural
function for those communities.
Concept
1 Establish a Puget Sound route for a cruise
ship( s) which permits a minimum of one
day/one night visits to approximately five
ports of call;
2 Cooperating "bed and breakfast" estab-
lishments within each port will provide
accommodations for the vessel's
passengers;
3 Time will be allotted for day time excur-
sions within each community, providing the
opportunity for shopping, dining and
entertainment.
4 Cultural and local festival activities
will be coordinated with the cruise ship
schedules to provide a number of the
following:
o Country Western Music Festival
o Fathoms of Fun Festival
o Local drama group's performance ( s)
relative to the local history (short
three-act play depicting humorous
aspects of 1890 Sidney-Port Orchard
life styles)
o Functions sponsored by local merchants
and chamber of commerce
o Other attractive activities.
Interested Cruise Ships
o Virginia V Steamer Foundation
Fishermen's Terminal
Vessel Length: 125 feet
Capacity: 325
Mr. Stevenson
(206) 624-9119
o Harbor Tours
Pier 56
Goodtime I
Vessel Length: 87 feet
Capacity: (460) 350 comfortably
Goodtime II
Capacity: (496) 350 comfortably
Goodtime III
Capacity: (400) 150 comfortably
Lynn or Alice Campbell
(206) 623-1445
o Grayline Tour Wholesaler
Charter, Seattle
Vessel Dimensions: 65 feet long, 2 5
feet wide, 10 feet draw
Maximum capacity: 250 theatre style
Capable of serving dinners on board,
and coordination with on-shore
activities
Shelly Paganelli
( 206) 343-2013
These groups were interviewed based on the
fact that the vessels do not have on-board
sleeping accommodations.
Potential Route
o Leave Seattle Friday evening
o Cruise Puget Sound with possible stops
at:
-Blake Island (salmon bake)
-Gig Harbor
o Dock at Port Orchard on Friday evening
o Utilize Port Orchard's "bed and break-
fast" facilities overnight with planned
activities downtown (performing arts)
o Leave Port Orchard for Poulsbo Saturday
afternoon
o Cruise Sinclair Inlet and the Naval
Shipyard facilities; Dyes Inlet
o Dock at Poulsbo Saturday evening,
staying overnight at the Fiord House
and Manor Fern Inn "bed and breakfast"
facilities and enjoy the bakery and
waterfront park on Sunday morning
o Leave Poulsbo sunday afternoon
o Cruise Puget Sound Inlets, cruise by
Kingston and Hansville
o Dock at Port Gamble Sunday evening,
stay overnight in the old residences,
tour the building complex and enjoy a
catered dinner; Monday morning would
include a tour of the mill, now one of
the most advanced computer-laser oper-
ated facilities in the country yet
housed in a National Historic Trust
structure
o Leave Port Gamble Monday afternoon
o Cruise Admiralty Inlet, passing by
Marrowstone Island, Fort Flagler State
Park, Lower Hadlock and Fort Worden
State Park
o Dock at Port Townsend on Monday evening
o Enjoy Port Townsend entertairunent and
dining establishments, stay overnight
at the James House and the Quimper Inn;
tour Port Townsend's historic district
Tuesday
o Leave Port Townsend Tuesday afternoon
o Cruise the Strait of Juan De Fuca along
Whidbey Island north through Deception
Pass and through Saratoga Passage to
Coupeville
o Leave Coupeville Wednesday afternoon
and arrive back in Seattle on Wednesday
evening. End of tour.
Although this cruise is hypothetical, it does
describe the potential of the many and diver-
sified Puget Sound corrununities. Port Gamble,
owned by Pope and Talbert, I?~·' is presently
studying the town for add1 t1onal use as a
conference and visitor center. Coupeville is
presently improving their ~aterfront result-
ing from the same avallable waterfront
resources and economic needs as Port Orchard.
The potential exists for strong mutually
beneficial coordination between Port Orchard
and these Puget Sound ports-of-call.
rhe Next Step ... :
l Establish contact with each corrununi ty
through the Downtown Association.
Form a Puget Sound Port-of-Call Visitors
Committee or Association to deal specifi-
cally with this project.
Develop the "bed and breakfast" facili-
ty(s) in Port Orchard.
With the Puget Sound Association in place,
with a list of on-shore sleeping facili-
ties and visitor activities outlined and
described, as a group contact the cruise
ship companies requesting considerat1on,
costs and potential schedules.
5 Contact selected travel agencies from the
communi ties involved and develop a prac-
tice chartered test run, developing a list
of improvements en .r:oute each. <;=o'!'l1luni ty
could make regarding 1mage, act1v1t1es ~nd
facilities· and have travel agenc1es
develop th~ package, prices and marketing.
Unique Vessels
unique Ship Display and Moorage Facility
The display of historic and/or u~i9ue ~aval
vessels within a new moorage fac1ll ty 1s an
important component of the ~arine . Eve~ts
Facility. In order to accompl1sh th1s d~s
play and moorage facility, ~he follow1ng
sponsoring organization requ1rements and
tasks need to be addressed.
A. Display Items (NayY Vessels)
Two sources of donated items pertinent to
the Port Orchard Waterfront Marine Event
Facility include:
1 Federal Surplus Personal
Donation Programs.
Property
2 Department of the Navy, Naval Sea
Systems Command captured or obsolete
vessels.
FEDERAL SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY DONATION
PROGRAMS
Eligible Recipients
o Public agencies including states, their
political subdivisions (such as
cities);
o Nonprofit educational and public health
organizations (including museums and
libraries);
o Nonprofit and Public Programs for the
elderly (organizations receiving ~unds
appropriated under the Older Amencans
Act of 1965, the Social Security Act,
or the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964);
o Educational activities of special
interest to the Armed Services (Red
Cross, Scouts, United Service Organi-
zations, Inc., Little League Baseball,
etc. ) ;
o Public airports.
Contact
Wash1ngton Surplus Property Section
6858 South 190th Street
Kent, WA 98031
(206) 872-6446
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS
COMMAND.
Eligible Recipients
o Munic1pal corporations
o Soldiers Monument Associations
o An incorporated museum, operated and
maintained for educational purposes
only, whose charter denies it the right
to operate for a profit
o A post of the American Legion
o A local unit of any other recognized
war veterans' association.
Navy Vessel Retuests:
Request for 1n ormation about the donation or
loan of U.S, Navy vessels for use as memori-
als should be directed to:
o Commander, Naval Sea systems Command,
ATTN: NSEA/CODG, Department of the
Navy, Washington, D.C. 20360. These
donations are covered by Statute 10
U.S.C. 7308 which provides that vessels
concerned must be obsolete or
condemned.
PROCEDURES
Donations of combat equipment for display
are made at no expense to the Government.
The cost of handling, demilitarization,
and transportation must be paid by the
requesting organization. The method of
transportation may be chosen by t~e re-
ceiving organization if such. cho1ce. 1s
economically advantageous and lf the 1tem
does not exceed weight or measurement
1 imitations established by State Highway
Departments. Donees are required to
comply with Title VI of civil Rights Act
of 1964.
When a sui table unit of combat equipment
can be made available, the requester is
supplied with the following information:
Description of the specific i tern, to
include measurements.
Cost for mandatory demilitarization,
which the recipient must pay before the
work will be done by the storing in-
stallation. Demilitarization renders
the equipment completely ineffectual as
a lethal weapon, and makes movable
parts stationary. This process, in the
interest of human safety, is performed
in accordance with specific rules
established for each type of item.
Estimation of the shipping weight, in
order that a recipient may compute
transportation costs.
Description of necessary documentation.
This includes signed copies of "Assur-
ance of Compliance" with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964; copy of
organization charter, a certificate
stating that the property is being
acquired for the donee's use and that
when the property is no longer required
by the donee, disposition instructions
will be requested from the original
donating activity. Requests from
incorporated museums operated and
maintained for educational purposes
only must be accompanied by a certifi-
cation of exemption from taxation under
the Internal Revenue Code, along with a
certification that they are maintained
for educational purposes only.
o The item is reserved for 30 days,
during which time the requester may
reject or accept the item. Acceptance
is indicated by forwarding to the
donating agency the certificates pro-
vided at the time equipment is offered,
properly completed by organization
officers. Rejection is indicated by
letter forwarded prior to the end of
the 30-day reservation period. In the
event a written acceptance or rejection
reply is not received during the 30-day
reservation period, the request for
donation will be cancelled and returned
to the requester.
o If a suitable unit of combat equipment
cannot be made available on receipt of
the application for donation, the
request for donation will remain valid
for a period of 60 days. Exception is
made to requests for donations pro-
cessed by the u.S. Army Armament
Material Readiness Command which will
remain valid for a period of one year.
Those that cannot be nonorea within
this time frame will be cancelled and
returned to the requester.
o Upon receipt of the above-mentioned
supporting certificates, and upon
payment for handling and demilitari-
zation, shipping orders are prepared to
supply the equipment. When the demili-
tarization has been accomplished, the
i tern will be shipped by rail or truck
transport, as indicated, with all
transportation charges collect•ble upon
delivery. If it is intended that the
material be picked up by truck, the
shipping installation will advise the
recipient when the i tern is ready for
pickup.
o Applications for donations of surplus
property submitted by a post (or other
local unit) of recognized veterans'
organizations shall include the written
approval of its National Headquarters.
Special Moorage
B. Moorage Facilities
The Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization
Project recommends the planning and con-
struction of a special moorage facility to
be associated with the activities of the
Marine Events Facility.
The U.s. Army Corps of Engineers is au-
thorized under Section 107 of the River
and Harbors Act of 1960 to provide assis-
tance for the planning and construction of
general navigation features for facilities
which demonstrate, through their use, an
economic benefit to the area and country.
The navigational features eligible for
u.s. Army Corps involvement include:
o Floating breakwaters
o Dredging (for access and entrance
channels).
Overall Criteria
o ProJect demonstrates economic benefit
to community;
o Recreational boating;
o Demonstrates a need for expansion of
existing moorage facilities;
o Moorage type includes permanent slips
as well as transient and/or display
moorage;
o Capacity Is at least 100 slips, based
on cost benefit analysis by u.S. Army
corps of Engineers;
o Sponsoring agency defines the type of
boats, slip length, and slip width.
Contact
Frank Urabeck
Bureau Chief
Navigation and Construction Planning
Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle, WA
(Additional contact: Andy Mayer,
Architect-Planner)
The Next Step ... for the City
o Subm1t a letter to the Bureau Chief,
referencing the discussion between Ron
Kasprisin and Frank Urabeck concerning the
Port Orchard unique ship moorage facility
requesting:
Assistance from the u.s. Army corps of
Engineers regarding Section 107 of the
1960 Rivers and Harbor Act.
And, provide information about the
proposed project (number of permanent
slips, length, width, amenities for
floats (benches, fish cleaning areas,
lighting, trash receptacles, informa-
tion signs) .
o Set up an appointment between the City of
Port Orchard, the Port of Bremerton and
the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers to ar-
range for:
A reconnaissance study to determine
ball park costs including local sponsor
costs;
Schedule for the second phase, more
detailed study. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will conduct a federal
benefit-cost ratio analysis prior to
undertaking the second level detailed
study.
City Of Port Orcharo.: RacoiillilB.Ildai Projoot Phasing And Fina.na1al Plan
Phase I 1983 -1984
1984
1984
Project Packaging
Detailed Design
Project Construction
This plan recommends that a Port Orchard Development Commission be established to assume significant responsibility
for project development and management.
Responsibilities:
PR = Private
CITY
PORT
SC = Service Clubs
ST = State
PODC = Port Orchard Development Commission
RES PONS I-ESTIMATED
PROJECT BILITIES COST
l. Walkway (Bay Street) CITY/PODC $13' 000
2. DeKalb Street CITY/PORT $20,000
3. Water Street sc $3,000
4. Bay Street CITY /PODC/ $5,000
sc
6. Boardwalk PORT $41,400
7. Waterfront Pavilion PORT/CITY $600,000
7a. Grandstand & Roof PORT/CITY $300,000
POTENTIAL
FINANCING SOURCES
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Port I Community
Economic Revitali-
zation Board
Economic Development
Administration/
State Community Dev-
elopment Block Grant
Program/Port
Port/Economic
Development
Administration/
State CDBG
AVAILABILITY
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
Annual Basis
GENERAL CRITERIA
AND REQUIREMENTS
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investwent
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Recreation, Public
Works Development,
Jobs, Private
Investment
Public Works, Economic
Development, Jobs,
Private Investment, &
Low & Moderate Income
Public Works, Economic
Development, Jobs,
Private Investment, &
Low & Moderate Income
64
9 Boardwalk/Guardrails
10. Sidewalk
lOa. Private Trail
11. Sidewalk
lla. Landscaping
12. Boardwalk
12a. Shelter
13. Bridge
14. Trail
15. Pavement
!Sa. Structure
lSb. Tent
16. New Facade &
Sidewalk
19. City Entry
20. Banners
?base n
i. New Moorage
7. Hill Clirnh
3
CITY /STATE
CITY/PODC
PR
PR
PR
CITY/PODC
CITY /PODC
CITY/PODC
CITY/PODC
PR
PR/CITY/PODC
PR
PR
CITY /SC
sc
1984 -1985
1985
1985
CITY/PORT/
PODC
PR/CITY I
PODC
$6,000 Interagency Annual Basis Recreation
Committee
$1,500 Interagency Annual Basis Recreation
Committee
$9,000 Property Owners/ At Local Budget Constraints
LID Initiative
$10,000 Property Owners/ At Local Budget Constraints
LID Initiative
$2,000 Property Owners/ At Local Budget Constraints
LID Initiative
$21,600 Interagency At Local Budget Constraints
Committee Initiative
$15,000 Federal Revenue At Local Budget Constraints
Sharing Initiative
$28,000 Federal Revenue At Local Budget Constraints
Sharing/Economic Initiative
Development
Administration
$9,000 Interagency Committee Annual Basis Recreation
$100,000 Community Economic Annual Basis Jobs, .Private
Revitalization Board Investment
$80,000 Community Economic Annual Basis Jobs, Private
Revitalization Board Investment
$25,000 Community Economic Annual Basis Jobs, Private
Revitalization Board Investment
$60,000 Local Improvement At Local Jobs, Private
District Initiative Investment
$8,000 Federal Revenue Annual Budget Constraints
Sharing/City Funds Local Initiative
$3,000 Merchants Local Initiative
Project Packaging
Detailed Design
Project Construction
$144,000 Port Annual Basis Budget Constraints
$12,500 Interagency Committee Annual Basis Recreation
21. New Light
Standards
22. Orchard Street
Walkway
23. Frederick Street
Walkway
24. Sidney Street
Walkway
25. Harrison Street
Walkway
26. "Fort Hill" Lookout
Phase m
5. Port Street
18. Texture Street
PR/CITY/
PODC
PR/CITY/
PODC
PR/CITY/
PORT/PODC
PR/CITY/
PORT/PODC
PR/CITY/
PORT/PODC
CITY/PODC
1985 -1986
1986
1986
CITY/PODC
PR/CITY/
PODC
$8,000 City General or
Street Funds
$3,500 City General or
Street Funds
$3,500 City General or
Street Funds
$3,500 City General or
Street Funds
$3,500 City General or
Street Funds
$3,000 Interagency Committee
Project Packaging
Detailed Design
Project Construction
$30,000
$90,000
Interagency Committee/
Community Economic
Revitalization Board,
LID
Local Improvement
District/Street Funds
Annual Budget Constraints
Loral Initiative
Annual Budget Constraints
Local Initiative
Annual Budget Constraints
Local Initiative
Annual Budget Constraints
Local Initiative
Annual Budget Constraints
Local Initiative
Annual Basis Recreation
Annual Basis
At Local
Initiative
Recreation, Public
Works, Jobs,
Private Investment
Budget Constraints
:·:::7::::-.-·· . --. ~ ::.-. ______ :::.· --·--. ----
II.~. t NOnTH
7
68
APPENDIX3
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan
:0 -(i) 0 (')
() ""' -""' r Ol.
(i) U'J
OJ 0 (fl -(') -:t> -· OJ 0 -· ::0 ()
:J Cl) a> ftl
0 :J ,..,. ()
"0 0. 0 0
ro :0 :I 3
:l (i) (/) 3
(fJ(Q '< ftl
u 0
{/) :::l
OJ .... 0.. :::3 (t)
01 () 0,) 3 ('0
0> (i) 0..
This classification system is intended to serve as a guide to planning-not as an absolute blue-
print. Sometimes more than one component may occur within the same site (but not on the same parcel
of land), particul~rly with respect to special uses within a regional park. Planners of park and re::-eation
systems should be careful to provide adequate land for each functional component when this occurs.
~, N RPA suggests that a park system, at a minimum, be composed of a "core" syS"tem of park lands, with
..
a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. The size and amount of
"adjunct" parklands will vary from community to community, but must be taken into account when con·
sidering a total, we!l·rounded system of parks and recreation areas .
COMPONENT USE SERVlC£ AREA DESIRABLE SIZE ACRES/1,000
PO?ULATION
DESIRABLE S!IE
CHARACT<:RISiiCS
..; A. LOCALICLOSE·TO·HOME.SPACE:
Mini·P~rk $pe<:ialized hcilities lm than ~~·mile 1 acr! or less 0.25 to O.SA Within neighbor·
thH ~rve a concen· radius. hoods ill'>d in dose
trated or limited pop-pro" imiry to aprt·
uiHion or IP~cific ment complt~u.
group such ~~ to u or townhouH d~elop--:
senior citizens. met\\ or housi119 for
" 1.511 the elderly.
N~ighborhoo<l Aru for intens-e r~· Y. to Vrmile radiul 15+ :~<:res I.O'to 2.0A Suit.-d lor intenn
~ Puk/PI;~ygrov::d rtHional activitiel, to ser-e 1 popvl~tion di:'Velopment. E~sily
su en as field games. UP \0 5,000 (a a=ssible to neicj1·
..; CO<.Jrt 9ilmt'1, Ctilf'\l, n~ighbomood I. borhC¢lj population-
play9round app.a. 9eQ9'iPhically
ra na ilre.a, skating. centered wim ~fe
picniding, wading walkin9 and bike ac·
pooh. eu:. ceu. May ~ dt!'lcl·
. (.,.'SA oped u ; school·
. "'· P"rk bcility .
Community P3rk Aru of diverse err Sevual neighbor· 25+ acrts C:J to S.OA MTY include natural
vironmenul quality. hoods. l to 2 mile leaturts, such u
May include areal radiut. water bodies, •nd
luited for intense r~· area$ suited for in-
rution~l faeilitiet, tense development.
wc:h as ~ th le tic com· Easily ~o:el.lible to
plex~. l•uve swim-neighborhood wved.
mir.g POOil, M01y b<':
Jn aru or n~turtl
quality for OtJtdoor
rterution, sveh u
walking. viewing.
sitting. picnicking.
lvhy b<': lny combina-
tioo of the ~bQYt,
t:
(.Q
tQ c ~
ro fJ) > (I)C: ~
(0 *C ,...ro c.. ~--c = Q
., CD c.."C ~ :1 ~ 3 (") c. -· -· ..., ('D -)< C..:: -· Ol
,.... > 0 fJ) ,.... '<
RECOMMENDED RECOMMENOEO RECOMMEN0£0 NO. OF UNITS PER SERVICE LOCATION ACTIVITY/ SPACE SIZE ANO 01\IENTAT!ON POPULATION RADIUS FACIUTY REOUIR£MENTS O!MENSIONS NOTES
ltlldmilht"*' 16:1'0 "'·II. s~"'f...., ... 'r • ..c.c· lew'1 h 1\ "o-t~f'l·t.Ckif-" I""' ~000 4·~ ""-'' Ut.t.nt•,. .n 1Cf'I..OQI, tr<•
OOovOitt -lO' • .. • • f~HJ!Ool'\ Ctl\tf", 01' O"tVJQ'\
.... tl\ s· vt'fOUlllloiC::h'<J ~~·h't,..~lt"'tt:('ti;N"i9
~trt.t 0,.00 ..,tl \1(1("\ ~(h~l' .-e:c:~.
•••et•ft
I.Y-•h '~·lCJG "'· f: .co·.~.:r • 84~ I..Ot'<of .,, n ~Otfl' .. \OVil\ I o.• SOOQ ~.~ n·hlf $..,..... «1 ~ff'IH\tOA~
l.H-.~ $.c:t\ool !><>-<0 .n ao "' " ~0" • 8<' OurQOQ.I' ;tNtH Jl'l.
l. C~Mi.-,wu $60().)9&0 "'· It ~0. , •. M"'hOo:lm~·I"'ISton"'o
"'-t,._tU~#'l"t._IOW\H '*"''" S,• \II'\Q()\$1V(til"'3 ! M:\lvt tt('tU.on. 4H.t1
'IU(' Oft aJil-'(1.,, H\ OIN'f ~r'( U 1\.1"9\..
I<W>d ... ll 100 14. H. to-'""""~II. JO' • .40' -M-"""'v'"l\ \,.~Ju~l'lt..JII"'~-" I P<• 4'0.000 '$-JO 11'1'\~U H....,l ~Uva.ttUy H'IOI100t
~~ .... tn 1000 lo' ; ... ,u q.t 10' lO JUt ~I l·-•U ,:,Qot"'t ..... u Jl ,..,,_,.;, t"'''d ·-.t'\ •~ ol ,.,..,.ltJtoO"I,,tP<'0\4'
Co.tfl. M•nfii'!"'Worf\ Uf' l~r<d1h. ~ ..... u ..,...., ... .,.
Ch'C"''I\Clld «;h"" ~""Ct. Ck.IICIO<\I' 1n Ct.tllil. Ot
~'"'"Ur'Wi'.
JaHc.:••r 11.000 1-Q. h. 11'\(.l\l(h"' Au•\%_ 15' I 'J:W' lOI"\i U tl N!>f IP••·~t.., I""'<)O<u-l Ptl \OO,o:;,Q, r .. t ~ovt u...,...~ hmt c•~~e .....,~()ot.._,..,,
W~Qft '"'· l"'"'~~o-.,..., &$' • ~IS' I. tloY~f 0vtdDOI-4rOotf"!dl-Of\ t:~~IIOt••IOOI'\ lrlt'("Uflf
AOChloonal S.OOO lo4. II, (hMHt. ~o. ot .,.,.,H. But .,
ru~.,._ C..,, Ol ""-JI11'"1;)1,rn)OW
lt<thty
T"""'. Mt-l".m~o~rn ot l.:xx'l l&" t n:· .• r c•••~".A"'<f" \.~ Uf\ 1\0fti\"'\\Vtlio. 1 tcvn P.t't '2'CQ:). ~-),. lf\tlt !n\ N\ IHfHI~tt Of J..t,
)(). ft. tt~i' <ovn. on t>cun t-<Ut: ]t' f,..cc.u«:~ "" l"ttfl'lot:JOI"•
(l K(fi lot C:Ol"t\OfU,J U(•t•.NCt: on o-otl\ .:neiL. 1'\0QQ/~Iltfy ~1'1;
01' tCU<f~l UO't I.Q\OQI
\fill!,
v .... ,.,... M...,~..,.. ot ".co:l Ja .. w ..... "'........,""' ~ I ~ ............... , ......... I 'C..OVI\j)~!,,:):). :l•"hrn<~h
I
s~ -lltt'ltf court
'KI.It. C1oll',t.ni"'CtO!'\.tll$111dn. l"'l'l'tU(l l~.f,,f.Wid•
tn""'f0fl, CWlU\tJ.~U. rtC..J
t ...... l
1. Ott'O:l.l l.C..l.M ~ nunHT>t,o~m • a..~·""""-90" Loc::.au I'Uw'nt Atau ..o lt><tSOOJ ".;_,'1lo mtlr ,..not~~tt-.I:H)mo.::>d
~"·~~~ <hua....:r-t:hH:"t''\ft IJV......,..nt (l)m.oh •. l,•fMt'd
60 \1' Kn:IU lUll trd t)otUI ~ •9'\IOCI-\ Oft' ;)Q,(X;X) 1, .. -.,1 &.tn. of ~l)ll'n-
F0o.1l 1IAC"'-""''cllft~ l70' .fi.Ctlf~tl..\.*"'fii'Otft N"f\\I"'IN' c:omo1 .. 1.
Ctnut tttki-&O:.Y • ~t'l>'l1fU'¥f'OV1"'
1. Link Lii.,."t \..2 A mtftomum • lhu-t.........,-GQ' '"·~·' trW:Nnd tv.t\
1dehtl\f drtUI"'C.......C&" tl'llt#'IOI'\n.-fi.W1.
FOVII--lo:T e.,,u H•td:-200"·
2$0"
,~-.,. M""'""mi.SA t80' s lo::T -·~' ~ •. n wn..G~A-I.CI'Mf nl'\ I t><l 4'0.000 'JS.l0 fi'UI'hUCS. t,.........f os.unv (t:Wt ol boti<f"
trun."""""'"'OJ 1t;r "'.,,._.,.Ule.,wtl'\t.lfU. . ...... b IJ1, IOOmJ.U. tOC'Cfl
Cf•-VAI'ICt Otl tit t_,n~ J.OI~~~~"'t<X:Il, ;DMC)tt.t II\ ~I'N'I'WAH'Y
"~" to loiN tn. ~t 0t .-dt.:IM Ht
f'l.lljll"t~l. ·-· "'"""""'mi.SA 160" .. ~60" .... ""'. s~ u ~·-ld hOClt"· l I .. , 4'0,000 t~lo m..,-..,tn \,...,.,, I .s~ 1'\ r ... ~ }\~fY•
"'""'~·''" '""" <1a•t......c• ol'l ait too::tt'1.
£..... 1.1 tO 2.1A Its· •• m· • llO' •• 1.,.... •t (llfkJ J\OCltl"f, I P'<' 10,000 l~l ,..., .. N umo.r a& vrult 1J.,..
lGO" ""'"' • ·ur INtwo ~,..,..~tld'iiV,
IPV,,M t:JoNtiAOI .ft aU ~Oo.ltl\'-+0\l.tl'.,.~!$<.
lli4Ct.. uh•'Ol .,,_....".to
.~ ........... ,....,.
~· ttrtl
APPENDIX4
lAC FORMS AND RESOLUTION
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan
10
Che.::k/Initial
Ea.::h to
Certify
Completion
RCF13 MA~UAI. 2: Pl.-1:\ic;INC POUOIS-}1\Nt.'.~RY 29,2008
SECTION 3 -APPENDIX
RD COMPREHENSIVE PARKS PLAN 2008
Plan Element Certification
1. Goals, objectives: The attached plan supports our project
\Vith broad statements of intent (goals) and measures that
describe when these intents will be attained
2. Inventory: The plan includes a description of the service
area's facilities, lands, programs, and their condition. (fHIJ l'vvfY
llJ: DONi' IN A .QUAN'TTIATlVE FORi\JA'I; OR IN A QUAT .!1A17VE/
NARR.,ITTVE
3. Public involvement: The planning process gave the public
ample opportunity to be involved in plan development and
adoption.
4. Demand and need analysis: ln the plan(s):
~ An analysis defines priorities, as appropriate, for acquisition,
development, preservation, enhancement, management, etc.,
and explains why these actions are needed.
~ The process used in developing the analysis assessed
community desires for parks, recreation, open space, and/or
habitat, as appropriate, in a manner appropriate for the service
area (personal observation, informal talks, formal survey(s),
5. Capital Improvement Program: The plan(s) includes a
capital improvement/facility progmm that lists hnd acquisition,
development, and renovation projects by year of anticipated
implementation; include funding source. The program includes
any capital project submitted to RCFB for funding.
6. Adoption: The plan(s) and process has received formal
governing body approval. (nV1T !.\~ O'IY/ COUNTY
Dl:P/IR:ZAJllNT l-!LAD, DJJTRlC/' P.ANGf.i/{1 IUiGTONA!, ivL,lN.'ICER/
JUPERVlJOR, ETC, AJ /lPPROPlUATii. AJT4CH RE.\'OUTriON,
LE'ITER, OR OTHER ADOPT/ON T!\TI1UJMENT.)
P"ge 1 <>f 1
Phnni11g Process Sdf.Certification
Do.::ument &
Page Number
Location of
Information
3
15
31
35
Appendix 4
Appendix 4
l /, '&-~
Date
RCFB MA;-;UAL 2: PLA1,JJ'\'TXG POIKTES-}\:-lU:\RY 29, 2008
SECTION 1-POLICIES
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FORM
(Parks, Recreation, Habitat Facilities)
Agency /Department _City of Port Orchard. _________ _ Date of Adoption _April 22, 2008 _________ _
Address _216 Prospect Street _____________ _ Resolution Number _2308 ___________ _
City, Zip Code _Port Orchard, W A 98366 ________ _ Completed By _Maher Abed, __________ _
Phone ( 360) _876-4991 County _Kitsap
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Priority Project Fund Acquisition
Name Source Development
Renovation
Restoration
1 varies I Current I Rennov. I
Expense
2
Paul
Powers I Current Develop. I
Park Expense
3
Fund Current Acquisition I
Aquisition Expense
4 Sidney Street I Rennov. I
Walkway
(S)
Facility
Type
Park
Park
Park
Path
Title _City Engineer / Public Works Director _____ _
(6)
Estimated Project Implementation Cost Per Year
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
I $3,000 I $ 3,ooo
I I $1so,ooo
I $5,000 I $5,000
I I $ 50,000
Page 1 of 1
RCFB FORM 062
Revised 01 /OR
I $ 3,ooo
I $3oo,ooo
I $5,000
I $3,000 I $ 3,000
I $120,000
I $5,000 I $5,000
2013
I $ 3,000
I $ 5,ooo
13
RESOLUTION NO. 023~08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD,
WASHINGTON APPROVING AND CERTIFYING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PARKS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
PORT ORCHARD.
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has adopted a Comprehensive
Parks Plan and capital improvement plan to implement the goals and objectives of the
Parks and Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has actively sought citizen input,
including the use of a public survey, to improve the municipal parks and to develop future
programs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has from time to time revised the
Comprehensive Parks Plan in order to address the changing needs of the community ; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the City Council held a pubric hearing to
receive additional public input regarding proposed changes to the Comprehensive Parks
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Parks Plan, including revisions to the capital improvement plan, are
consistent with the Parks and Opens Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CJTY OF PORT ORCHARD DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE THE FOLLOWING:
THAT: The City of Port Orchard approves and certifies the
Comprehensive Parks Plan for the City of Port Orchard, as amended, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the
Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such pass:~his 22"nd~y of April 2008.
,_ /:---}.7/ ---//'/'
. ""· //
ATTEST:
Michelle Merlino, City Clerk
City of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan
APPENDIX 5
PARKS SURVEY OCTOBER 2006 SUMMARY
& PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 1 of 3
W:\Engineering\Survey Data\SUMMARY PARKS SURVEY OCTOBER 2006.doc
PARKS SURVEY – OCTOBER 2006
SUMMARY SHEET
How many people in household? (Number of households with--)
1 Adult 28 1 Child 14 Infant/Preschool 8
2 Adults 74 2 Children 17 Kindergarten 8
3 Adults 2 3 Children 7 Elementary 17
4 Adults 2 4 Children 3 Middle/Jr. High 16
Senior High 15
Yearly visits to following facilities. (Answers such as frequently, occasionally,
rarely, yes were not included in the tally.)
Active Club Building 389
Active Club Park 417
Van Zee Park 1596
Central Playfield 409
Paul Powers Park 483
Pedestrian Pier 1164
Etta Turner Park 692
Nick Repanich Park 3768
Boat Launch 629
Walkway along Waterfront 4341
If you don’t use City parks, why not?
No horseshoe pit
Too busy
Roads not walker friendly to get to parks
Playground equipment outdated
No interest
Restrooms dirty
Don’t know where they are
Handicapped
Negligent upkeep & maintenance
Playgrounds need updating
No trails
Kicked out of Van Zee by soccer group
Should City parks be reservable?
Yes 68
No 10
Page 2 of 3
W:\Engineering\Survey Data\SUMMARY PARKS SURVEY OCTOBER 2006.doc
Should there be a fee for reserving park facility?
Yes 59
No 25
Rate City parks 1= Great 5 = Needs improvement
1 2 3 4 5
Maintenance 16 18 23 18 11
Cleanliness 17 26 18 20 8
Amenities 9 18 26 17 12
Is there a need for an RV park?
Yes 33
No 53
Need/Priority for following. 1 = Priority 5 = Not necessary
1 2 3 4 5
More recreation centers 25 12 21 14 17
More park facilities 27 11 26 12 17
More beach/waterfront access 49 18 15 5 9
More trails 47 18 17 5 10
Purchase land 44 12 18 6 13
Maintain existing facilities 59 21 12 4 4
Road shoulders for walking 63 13 9 5 8
Exercise trails 48 10 21 8 8
Sidewalks 55 16 14 5 8
Baseball fields 11 11 30 20 20
Playgrounds 22 22 27 11 12
Basketball courts 8 18 32 10 16
Soccer fields 12 15 27 18 16
Tennis courts 10 14 32 15 17
Covered picnic areas 25 18 24 17 9
Skateboard/rollerblade area 21 19 28 7 18
Specify other community needs.
Programs geared to younger children
Something more for teens and young adults
Parking for downtown
Parking for existing facilities. Set hours & enforce.
Bicycle lanes
Community events center
More roadway litter pick up
Mini-golf, go-cart, bm-x trails, bathroom facilities, Gulf War Memorial
Fix up moldy, ugly downtown
Clean up
Sidewalk on both sides from Blackjack Creek to city
Launching ramps
Page 3 of 3
W:\Engineering\Survey Data\SUMMARY PARKS SURVEY OCTOBER 2006.doc
Other Needs - continued
New park in Hull/Melcher area
Community swimming pool
Off-leash dog park
More concerts by the bay
Preserve green space
Unlock restrooms
YMCA-type facility
Additional comments.
See survey printout
City of Port Orchard
Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting of April 8, 2008
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Lary Coppola, Mayor
Council Members: Mayor Pro-Tem Clauson, Chang, Childs, Colebank,
Powers, and Putaansuu
ABSENT: Council Members Olin (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Police Chief Townsend, Police Commander Marti, Public Works
Director Abed, Development Director Weaver, IT Manager Tucker, City Clerk Merlino,
Deputy Clerk Kirkpatrick, and City Attorney Jacoby.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Charlotte Garrido led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance
CITIZEN COMMENT
Kathy Lipka requested that the entrance door on the first floor remain unlocked during
Council Meetings.
Becky Vanni President of the Local MOMS Club voiced concern with the condition of City
parks, noting that the Club had previously met with the Mayor and he suggested they
begin attending Council meetings. Based on that meeting the Club began to create
some short and long-term goals for park rehabilitation. Ms. Vanni indicated the Club
was willing to work with the City on park rehabilitation and that the Club wants to be a
part of the solution.
Council Members and the Mayor thanked Ms. Vanni and the Local MOMS Club
for being proactive in helping to find solutions for improving City parks and invited the
Club to attend future Public Property Committee and City Council meetings.
Council Member Powers arrived at 7:10 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to Business:
• Discussion Item: Perry Avenue Speeders
• Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC)
America’s Playgrounds
Safety Report Card
DOES PAUL POWERS PARK (2035 Sidney) MAKE THE GRADE?
Evaluate your playground using the following criteria.
A full explanation of the criteria is on the back of this sheet.
Yes No
SUPERVISION
Adults present when children are on equipment X
Children can be easily viewed on equipment X
Children can be viewed in crawl spaces - none X
Rules posted regarding expected behavior X
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN
Playgrounds have separate areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12 X
Platforms have appropriate guardrails X
Platforms allow change of directions to get on/off structure X
Signage indicating age group for equipment provided X
Equipment design prevents climbing outside the structure X
Supporting structure prevents climbing on it X
FALL SURFACING
Suitable surfacing materials provided X
Height of all equipment is 8 feet or lower X
Appropriate depth of loose fill provided X
Six foot use zone has appropriate surfacing X
Concrete footings are covered X
Surface free of foreign objects – broken beer bottles X
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Equipment is free of noticeable gaps X
Equipment is free of head entrapments – slide looks unsafe X
Equipment is free of broken parts X
Equipment is free of missing parts X
Equipment is free of protruding bolts X
Equipment is free of rust – rust on swings X
Equipment is free of splinters X
Equipment is free of cracks/holes – swings have cracks X
TOTAL POINTS 12 12
For Additional Resources and Information Contact:
National Program for Playground Safety: 1-800-554-PLAY (7529) ~ www.playgroundsafety.org
SCORING SYSTEM
Total the number of “Yes”
answers in the “Total Points”
box in the table.
24 – 20 = A Congratulations on
having a SAFE playground.
Please continue to maintain this
excellence.
19 – 17 = B
Your playground is on its way to
providing a safe environment for
children. Work on the areas checked
‘No’.
16 – 13 = C
Your playground is potentially
hazardous for children. Take
corrective measures.
12 – 8 = D
Children are at risk on this
playground. Start to make
improvements.
7 & = F
Do not allow children on this
playground. Make changes
immediately.
**If any of the gray boxes
are marked ‘NO’, the
potential of a life
threatening injury is
significantly increased.
Contact the owner of the
playground.
Explanation of Risk Factor Criteria
SUPERVISION
*1. Since equipment can’t supervise children, it is important that adult supervision is present when children are playing on the playground.
2. In order to properly supervise, children need to be seen. This question is asking if there are any blind spots where children can hide out of the sight of the
supervisor.
3. Many crawl spaces, tunnels, and boxed areas have plexiglas or some type of transparent material present to allow the supervisor to see that a child is inside the
space. When blind tunnels are present, children cannot be properly supervised.
4. Rules help reinforce expected behavior. Therefore, the posting of playground rules is recommended. For children, ages 2-5, no more than three rules should be
posted. Children over the age of five will remember five rules. These rules should be general in nature, such as “respect each other and take turns.”
AGE APPROPRIATE DESIGN
*1. It is recommended that playgrounds have separate areas with appropriately sized equipment and materials to serve ages 2-5 and ages 5-12. Further, the
intended user group should be obvious from the design and scale of equipment. In playgrounds designed to serve children of all ages, the layout of
pathways and the landscaping of the playground should show the distinct areas for the different age groups. The areas should be separated at least by a buffer
zone, which could be an area with shrubs or benches.
*2. Either guardrails or protective barriers may be used to prevent inadvertent or unintentional falls off elevated platforms. However, to provide greater
protection, protective barriers should be designed to prevent intentional attempts by children.
3. Platforms over six feet in height should provide an intermediate standing surface where a decision can be made to halt the ascent or to pursue an alternative
means of descent.
4. Signs posted in the playground area can be used to give some guidance to adults as to the age appropriateness of equipment.
5. Children use equipment in creative ways which are not necessarily what the manufacturer intended when designing the piece. Certain
equipment pieces, like high tube slides, can put the child at risk if they can easily climb on the outside of the piece. The answer to this
question is a judgment on your part as to whether the piece was designed to minimize risk to the child for injury from a fall.
6. Support structures such as long poles, bars, swing frames, etc. become the play activity. The problem is that many times these structures
have no safe surfacing underneath and children fall from dangerous heights to hard surfaces.
FALL SURFACING
*1. Appropriate surfaces are either loose fill (engineered wood fiber, sand, pea gravel, or shredded tires) or unitary surfaces (rubber tiles, rubber mats, and
poured in place rubber). Inappropriate surface materials are asphalt, concrete, dirt, and grass. It should be noted that falls from 1 ft. onto concrete could
cause a concussion. Falls from a height of eight feet onto dirt is the same as a child hitting a brick wall traveling 30 mph.
*2. Research has shown that equipment heights can double the probability of a child getting injured. We recommend that the height of
equipment for pre-school age children be no higher than 6 feet and the height of equipment for school age children be limited to 8 feet. *3. Proper loose fill
surfacing must be at the appropriate depth to cushion falls. An inch of sand upon hard packed dirt will not provide any
protection. We recommend 12 inches of loose fill material under and around playground equipment.
*4. Appropriate surfacing should be located directly underneath equipment and extend six feet in all directions with the exception of slides
and swings, which have a longer use zone.
*5. You should not be able to see concrete footings around any of the equipment. Deaths or permanent disabilities have occurred from children falling off
equipment and striking their heads on exposed footings.
6. Glass, bottle caps, needles, trash, etc. can also cause injury if present on playground surfaces.
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
*1. Strangulation is the leading cause of playground fatalities. Some of these deaths occur when drawstrings on sweatshirts, coats, and other clothing get caught in
gaps in the equipment. The area on top of slides is one potential trouble spot.
*2. Entrapment places include between guardrails and underneath merry-go-rounds. Head entrapment occurs when the body fits through a space but the child’s
head cannot pass through the same space. This occurs because generally, young children’s heads are larger than their bodies. If the space between two parts
(usually guardrails) is more than three and a half inches then it must be greater than nine inches to avoid potential entrapment.
*3. Broken equipment pieces are accidents waiting to happen. If a piece of equipment is broken, measures need to be taken to repair the piece. In the meantime,
children should be kept off the equipment.
*4. Missing parts also create a playground hazard. A rung missing from a ladder, which is the major access point onto a piece of equipment, poses an unnecessary
injury hazard for the child.
5. Protruding bolts or fixtures can cause problems with children running into equipment or catching clothing. Therefore, they pose a potential safety hazard.
6. Exposed metal will rust. This weakens the equipment and will eventually create a serious playground hazard.
7. Wood structures must be treated on a regular basis to avoid weather related problems such as splinters. Splintering can cause serious injuries to children.
8. Plastic equipment may crack or develop holes due to temperature extremes and/or vandalism. This is a playground hazard.
*If these risk factors are missing, the potential for a life-threatening injury is significantly increased. 2006 National
Program for Playground Safety
America’s Playgrounds
Safety Report Card
DOES Givens Community Center (Structure behind) MAKE THE
GRADE?
Evaluate your playground using the following criteria. A full explanation
of the criteria is on the back of this sheet.
Yes No
SUPERVISION
Adults present when children are on equipment x
Children can be easily viewed on equipment x
Children can be viewed in crawl spaces - none x
Rules posted regarding expected behavior x
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN
Playgrounds have separate areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12 x
Platforms have appropriate guardrails x
Platforms allow change of directions to get on/off structure x
Signage indicating age group for equipment provided x
Equipment design prevents climbing outside the structure x
Supporting structure prevents climbing on it x
FALL SURFACING
Suitable surfacing materials provided x
Height of all equipment is 8 feet or lower x
Appropriate depth of loose fill provided - only one low spot x
Six foot use zone has appropriate surfacing x
Concrete footings are covered x
Surface free of foreign objects – broken beer bottles x
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Equipment is free of noticeable gaps x
Equipment is free of head entrapments – slide looks unsafe x
Equipment is free of broken parts x
Equipment is free of missing parts x
Equipment is free of protruding bolts x
Equipment is free of rust – rust on swings x
Equipment is free of splinters x
Equipment is free of cracks/holes – swings have cracks x
TOTAL POINTS 19 5
• Under one climbing structure the fall surfacing needs to be replaced
• Older climbers boarder at 8ft, but easily climb to top and be over that.
Equipment overall in good condition. Small steps could be taken to to make this one of
the few safe parks in our city.
America’s Playgrounds
Safety Report Card
DOES CENTRAL PARK (915 Dwight St.) MAKE THE GRADE?
Evaluate your playground using the following criteria.
A full explanation of the criteria is on the back of this sheet.
Yes No
SUPERVISION
Adults present when children are on equipment X
Children can be easily viewed on equipment X
Children can be viewed in crawl spaces X
Rules posted regarding expected behavior
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN
Playgrounds have separate areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12
Platforms have appropriate guardrails
Platforms allow change of directions to get on/off structure
Signage indicating age group for equipment provided
Equipment design prevents climbing outside the structure
Supporting structure prevents climbing on it
FALL SURFACING
Suitable surfacing materials provided
Height of all equipment is 8 feet or lower
Appropriate depth of loose fill provided
Six foot use zone has appropriate surfacing
Concrete footings are covered X
Surface free of foreign objects X
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Equipment is free of noticeable gaps
Equipment is free of head entrapments
Equipment is free of broken parts X
Equipment is free of missing parts X
Equipment is free of protruding bolts X
Equipment is free of rust
Equipment is free of splinters
Equipment is free of cracks/holes X
TOTAL POINTS 9 15
General Comments:
• Muddy area by play area needs grass planted but they just planted trees there.
• People need to pick up after there pets
• Bathroom should be cleaned better
• Short wood fence around one of the swing sets serves no purpose and should be removed kids can climb over it
and get splinters
• Need picnic tables or more benches near play area
• There is a semi-new retaining wall but there is big spaces at either end of it that could trap a Child.
National Program for Playground Safety: ~ www.playgroundsafety.org
SCORING SYSTEM
Total the number of “Yes”
answers in the “Total Points”
box in the table.
24 – 20 = A Congratulations on
having a SAFE playground.
Please continue to maintain this
excellence.
19 – 17 = B
Your playground is on its way to
providing a safe environment for
children. Work on the areas checked
‘No’.
16 – 13 = C
Your playground is potentially
hazardous for children. Take
corrective measures.
12 – 8 = D
Children are at risk on this
playground. Start to make
improvements.
7 & = F
Do not allow children on this
playground. Make changes
immediately.
**If any of the gray boxes
are marked ‘NO’, the
potential of a life
threatening injury is
significantly increased.
Contact the owner of the
playground.
Explanation of Risk Factor Criteria
SUPERVISION
*1. Since equipment can’t supervise children, it is important that adult supervision is present when children are playing on the playground.
2. In order to properly supervise, children need to be seen. This question is asking if there are any blind spots where children can hide out of the sight of the
supervisor.
3. Many crawl spaces, tunnels, and boxed areas have plexiglas or some type of transparent material present to allow the supervisor to see that a child is inside the
space. When blind tunnels are present, children cannot be properly supervised.
4. Rules help reinforce expected behavior. Therefore, the posting of playground rules is recommended. For children, ages 2-5, no more than three rules should be
posted. Children over the age of five will remember five rules. These rules should be general in nature, such as “respect each other and take turns.”
AGE APPROPRIATE DESIGN
*1. It is recommended that playgrounds have separate areas with appropriately sized equipment and materials to serve ages 2-5 and ages 5-12. Further, the
intended user group should be obvious from the design and scale of equipment. In playgrounds designed to serve children of all ages, the layout of
pathways and the landscaping of the playground should show the distinct areas for the different age groups. The areas should be separated at least by a buffer
zone, which could be an area with shrubs or benches.
*2. Either guardrails or protective barriers may be used to prevent inadvertent or unintentional falls off elevated platforms. However, to provide greater
protection, protective barriers should be designed to prevent intentional attempts by children.
3. Platforms over six feet in height should provide an intermediate standing surface where a decision can be made to halt the ascent or to pursue an alternative
means of descent.
4. Signs posted in the playground area can be used to give some guidance to adults as to the age appropriateness of equipment.
5. Children use equipment in creative ways which are not necessarily what the manufacturer intended when designing the piece. Certain
equipment pieces, like high tube slides, can put the child at risk if they can easily climb on the outside of the piece. The answer to this
question is a judgment on your part as to whether the piece was designed to minimize risk to the child for injury from a fall.
6. Support structures such as long poles, bars, swing frames, etc. become the play activity. The problem is that many times these structures
have no safe surfacing underneath and children fall from dangerous heights to hard surfaces.
FALL SURFACING
*1. Appropriate surfaces are either loose fill (engineered wood fiber, sand, pea gravel, or shredded tires) or unitary surfaces (rubber tiles, rubber mats, and
poured in place rubber). Inappropriate surface materials are asphalt, concrete, dirt, and grass. It should be noted that falls from 1 ft. onto concrete could
cause a concussion. Falls from a height of eight feet onto dirt is the same as a child hitting a brick wall traveling 30 mph.
*2. Research has shown that equipment heights can double the probability of a child getting injured. We recommend that the height of
equipment for pre-school age children be no higher than 6 feet and the height of equipment for school age children be limited to 8 feet. *3. Proper loose fill
surfacing must be at the appropriate depth to cushion falls. An inch of sand upon hard packed dirt will not provide any
protection. We recommend 12 inches of loose fill material under and around playground equipment.
*4. Appropriate surfacing should be located directly underneath equipment and extend six feet in all directions with the exception of slides
and swings, which have a longer use zone.
*5. You should not be able to see concrete footings around any of the equipment. Deaths or permanent disabilities have occurred from children falling off
equipment and striking their heads on exposed footings.
6. Glass, bottle caps, needles, trash, etc. can also cause injury if present on playground surfaces.
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
*1. Strangulation is the leading cause of playground fatalities. Some of these deaths occur when drawstrings on sweatshirts, coats, and other clothing get caught in
gaps in the equipment. The area on top of slides is one potential trouble spot.
*2. Entrapment places include between guardrails and underneath merry-go-rounds. Head entrapment occurs when the body fits through a space but the child’s
head cannot pass through the same space. This occurs because generally, young children’s heads are larger than their bodies. If the space between two parts
(usually guardrails) is more than three and a half inches then it must be greater than nine inches to avoid potential entrapment.
*3. Broken equipment pieces are accidents waiting to happen. If a piece of equipment is broken, measures need to be taken to repair the piece. In the meantime,
children should be kept off the equipment.
*4. Missing parts also create a playground hazard. A rung missing from a ladder, which is the major access point onto a piece of equipment, poses an unnecessary
injury hazard for the child.
5. Protruding bolts or fixtures can cause problems with children running into equipment or catching clothing. Therefore, they pose a potential safety hazard.
6. Exposed metal will rust. This weakens the equipment and will eventually create a serious playground hazard.
7. Wood structures must be treated on a regular basis to avoid weather related problems such as splinters. Splintering can cause serious injuries to children.
8. Plastic equipment may crack or develop holes due to temperature extremes and/or vandalism. This is a playground hazard.
*If these risk factors are missing, the potential for a life-threatening injury is significantly increased. 2006 National
Program for Playground Safety
America’s Playgrounds
Safety Report Card
DOES South Kitsap (Jackson and Lund) MAKE THE GRADE?
Evaluate your playground using the following criteria.
A full explanation of the criteria is on the back of this sheet.
Yes No
SUPERVISION
Adults present when children are on equipment X
Children can be easily viewed on equipment X
Children can be viewed in crawl spaces X
Rules posted regarding expected behavior X
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN
Playgrounds have separate areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12 X
Platforms have appropriate guardrails X
Platforms allow change of directions to get on/off structure X
Signage indicating age group for equipment provided X
Equipment design prevents climbing outside the structure X
Supporting structure prevents climbing on it X
FALL SURFACING
Suitable surfacing materials provided X
Height of all equipment is 8 feet or lower X
Appropriate depth of loose fill provided X
Six foot use zone has appropriate surfacing X
Concrete footings are covered X
Surface free of foreign objects X
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Equipment is free of noticeable gaps X
Equipment is free of head entrapments X
Equipment is free of broken parts X
Equipment is free of missing parts X
Equipment is free of protruding bolts X
Equipment is free of rust X
Equipment is free of splinters X
Equipment is free of cracks/holes X
TOTAL POINTS 19 6
General Comments:
• Not enough pea gravel underneath tires swing, when it rains it is when beneath
• Metal bars are slippery when wet
• The public water tap near the restrooms does not completely close and gallons of water is being wasted.
For Additional Resources and Information Contact:
National Program for Playground Safety: 1-800-554-PLAY (7529) ~ www.playgroundsafety.org
SCORING SYSTEM
Total the number of “Yes”
answers in the “Total Points”
box in the table.
24 – 20 = A Congratulations on
having a SAFE playground.
Please continue to maintain this
excellence.
19 – 17 = B
Your playground is on its way to
providing a safe environment for
children. Work on the areas checked
‘No’.
16 – 13 = C
Your playground is potentially
hazardous for children. Take
corrective measures.
12 – 8 = D
Children are at risk on this
playground. Start to make
improvements.
7 & = F
Do not allow children on this
playground. Make changes
immediately.
**If any of the gray boxes
are marked ‘NO’, the
potential of a life
threatening injury is
significantly increased.
Contact the owner of the
playground.
Explanation of Risk Factor Criteria
SUPERVISION
*1. Since equipment can’t supervise children, it is important that adult supervision is present when children are playing on the playground.
2. In order to properly supervise, children need to be seen. This question is asking if there are any blind spots where children can hide out of the sight of the
supervisor.
3. Many crawl spaces, tunnels, and boxed areas have plexiglas or some type of transparent material present to allow the supervisor to see that a child is inside the
space. When blind tunnels are present, children cannot be properly supervised.
4. Rules help reinforce expected behavior. Therefore, the posting of playground rules is recommended. For children, ages 2-5, no more than three rules should be
posted. Children over the age of five will remember five rules. These rules should be general in nature, such as “respect each other and take turns.”
AGE APPROPRIATE DESIGN
*1. It is recommended that playgrounds have separate areas with appropriately sized equipment and materials to serve ages 2-5 and ages 5-12. Further, the
intended user group should be obvious from the design and scale of equipment. In playgrounds designed to serve children of all ages, the layout of
pathways and the landscaping of the playground should show the distinct areas for the different age groups. The areas should be separated at least by a buffer
zone, which could be an area with shrubs or benches.
*2. Either guardrails or protective barriers may be used to prevent inadvertent or unintentional falls off elevated platforms. However, to provide greater
protection, protective barriers should be designed to prevent intentional attempts by children.
3. Platforms over six feet in height should provide an intermediate standing surface where a decision can be made to halt the ascent or to pursue an alternative
means of descent.
4. Signs posted in the playground area can be used to give some guidance to adults as to the age appropriateness of equipment.
5. Children use equipment in creative ways which are not necessarily what the manufacturer intended when designing the piece. Certain
equipment pieces, like high tube slides, can put the child at risk if they can easily climb on the outside of the piece. The answer to this
question is a judgment on your part as to whether the piece was designed to minimize risk to the child for injury from a fall.
6. Support structures such as long poles, bars, swing frames, etc. become the play activity. The problem is that many times these structures
have no safe surfacing underneath and children fall from dangerous heights to hard surfaces.
FALL SURFACING
*1. Appropriate surfaces are either loose fill (engineered wood fiber, sand, pea gravel, or shredded tires) or unitary surfaces (rubber tiles, rubber mats, and
poured in place rubber). Inappropriate surface materials are asphalt, concrete, dirt, and grass. It should be noted that falls from 1 ft. onto concrete could
cause a concussion. Falls from a height of eight feet onto dirt is the same as a child hitting a brick wall traveling 30 mph.
*2. Research has shown that equipment heights can double the probability of a child getting injured. We recommend that the height of
equipment for pre-school age children be no higher than 6 feet and the height of equipment for school age children be limited to 8 feet. *3. Proper loose fill
surfacing must be at the appropriate depth to cushion falls. An inch of sand upon hard packed dirt will not provide any
protection. We recommend 12 inches of loose fill material under and around playground equipment.
*4. Appropriate surfacing should be located directly underneath equipment and extend six feet in all directions with the exception of slides
and swings, which have a longer use zone.
*5. You should not be able to see concrete footings around any of the equipment. Deaths or permanent disabilities have occurred from children falling off
equipment and striking their heads on exposed footings.
6. Glass, bottle caps, needles, trash, etc. can also cause injury if present on playground surfaces.
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
*1. Strangulation is the leading cause of playground fatalities. Some of these deaths occur when drawstrings on sweatshirts, coats, and other clothing get caught in
gaps in the equipment. The area on top of slides is one potential trouble spot.
*2. Entrapment places include between guardrails and underneath merry-go-rounds. Head entrapment occurs when the body fits through a space but the child’s
head cannot pass through the same space. This occurs because generally, young children’s heads are larger than their bodies. If the space between two parts
(usually guardrails) is more than three and a half inches then it must be greater than nine inches to avoid potential entrapment.
*3. Broken equipment pieces are accidents waiting to happen. If a piece of equipment is broken, measures need to be taken to repair the piece. In the meantime,
children should be kept off the equipment.
*4. Missing parts also create a playground hazard. A rung missing from a ladder, which is the major access point onto a piece of equipment, poses an unnecessary
injury hazard for the child.
5. Protruding bolts or fixtures can cause problems with children running into equipment or catching clothing. Therefore, they pose a potential safety hazard.
6. Exposed metal will rust. This weakens the equipment and will eventually create a serious playground hazard.
7. Wood structures must be treated on a regular basis to avoid weather related problems such as splinters. Splintering can cause serious injuries to children.
8. Plastic equipment may crack or develop holes due to temperature extremes and/or vandalism. This is a playground hazard.
*If these risk factors are missing, the potential for a life-threatening injury is significantly increased. 2006 National
Program for Playground Safety
America’s Playgrounds
Safety Report Card
DOES VAN ZEE PARK (300 Tremont) MAKE THE GRADE?
Evaluate your playground using the following criteria.
A full explanation of the criteria is on the back of this sheet.
Yes No
SUPERVISION
Adults present when children are on equipment X
Children can be easily viewed on equipment X
Children can be viewed in crawl spaces X
Rules posted regarding expected behavior X
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN
Playgrounds have separate areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12 X
Platforms have appropriate guardrails X
Platforms allow change of directions to get on/off structure X
Signage indicating age group for equipment provided X
Equipment design prevents climbing outside the structure X
Supporting structure prevents climbing on it X
FALL SURFACING
Suitable surfacing materials provided X
Height of all equipment is 8 feet or lower X
Appropriate depth of loose fill provided X
Six foot use zone has appropriate surfacing X
Concrete footings are covered – see note below X
Surface free of foreign objects X
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Equipment is free of noticeable gaps X
Equipment is free of head entrapments X
Equipment is free of broken parts X
Equipment is free of missing parts X
Equipment is free of protruding bolts X
Equipment is free of rust X
Equipment is free of splinters X
Equipment is free of cracks/holes X
TOTAL POINTS 16 8
General Comments:
• Not enough pea gravel underneath tires swing, when it rains it is when beneath
• Metal bars are slippery when wet
• There appears to be something that looks like fire pit inside the play area (within the pea gravel). It might
have once contained a piece of equipment but now is just a hallow CONCRETE Base.
For Additional Resources and Information Contact:
National Program for Playground Safety: 1-800-554-PLAY (7529) www.playgroundsafety.org
SCORING SYSTEM
Total the number of “Yes”
answers in the “Total Points”
box in the table.
24 – 20 = A Congratulations on
having a SAFE playground.
Please continue to maintain this
excellence.
19 – 17 = B
Your playground is on its way to
providing a safe environment for
children. Work on the areas checked
‘No’.
16 – 13 = C
Your playground is potentially
hazardous for children. Take
corrective measures.
12 – 8 = D
Children are at risk on this
playground. Start to make
improvements.
7 & = F
Do not allow children on this
playground. Make changes
immediately.
**If any of the gray boxes
are marked ‘NO’, the
potential of a life
threatening injury is
significantly increased.
Contact the owner of the
playground.
1dependent.com
Aaron Burkhalter/Staff Photo
WSUintern Matthew Macaras inspects the wall he helped build
at Central Park on Dekalb.
Pagel\9
Central
Parkgeis
new wall
Independent News Sources
PortOrchard's Central Park; a
playfield located on Dwight Street
between Seattle and Harrison,
is receiving a much-needed wall
along its east side.
A wall that Hnes the park
holds the land elevated above
the houses to its east. Over the
years, the old wall began to warp,
dumping soil onto the adjacent
properties,
The park has been closed
this week, as ail intern from
Public Works oversees the
wall replacement. Matthew
Macaras, an engineerip.g
student from Western
Washington .. Univ~rsity,
directed the $20,000 project,
which installed segments of
wall in large concrete ~locks.
Macaras, 22, said the project
has so far come under budget,
around $17,000. L.J
. . '033· ~{) '0
1
James Weaver
From:Kissy Strombeck [kmstrombeck@msn.com]
Sent:Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:16 PM
To:James Weaver
Cc:Becci Vanni; billandjulia@msn.com; Carol Riehl; Daba Pagel; Janet McDermott; jeannine
mccurrie; Jennifer Newcomer; Kelsay Irby
Subject:Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan 2008
Categories:Comprehensive Plan
Kissy Strombeck
kmstrombeck@msn.com
Port Orchard, WA, 98366
April 16, 2008
James Weaver
jweaver@cityofportorchard.us
Port Orchard Planning Department
216 Division Street
Port Orchard, WA, 98366
Dear Mr. Weaver,,
On Monday, April 21, 2008 there will be a Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan General Meeting for
2008.
As a member of a group of concerned citizens regarding the future of Port Orchard Parks and
Recreation, would it be imperative that we show up at this first meeting? Do we need to bring
a list of goals and objectives? Is it important to come to this meeting with many interested
parties or would a few suffice? Will the future agenda be based on your findings from the
April 21, 2008 first general meeting of Open Space & Parks: Public Parks, community centers,
& recreation. Or will you still be taking community goals and objectives after this first
general meeting?
I understand that it might be cumbersome to serve the public interest regarding the Open
Space & Parks Comprehensive Plan but we are very interested in this area of planning for our
community. As concerned citizens and as concerned parents we would like to be involved in
this planning process and have a meaningful role in the development of plans and programs for
the City of Port Orchard Parks and Recreation.
2
In addition, a few of us tried to fill out the online survey and unfortunately, it is still
under construction. We are hoping that it will be up and running soon to post our comments
and opinions on the survey.
Sincerely,
Kissy Strombeck
.
_________________________________________________________________
Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.
http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_packup_0
42008